2009/5/28 Stanislav Brabec :

Cristian Morales Vega wrote:

...

Well, just that. Sometimes I find a -devel package requires another one, why? I do that when the pkg-config file has a "Requires: XXX" and rpmlint complains the same isn't in the RPM spec file, but normally I also don't see why the .pc file has such an entry.

It is not a rpmlint, but an old style build check script.

There are two checks:

.pc check: Checks that all files listed in .pc are in Requires of the rpm, so you can easily add Requires: foo-devel and everything needed is included. Starting with rpm 4.6, this check will be obsolete, as rpm itself will automatically require and provide these packages.

...there is any decision about when the upgrade to rpm 4.6 will be done? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Hi,

.la check: This is an another story. When .la file is present, you have to have all .la files listed there, otherwise linking fails. That is why it is better to remove .la files if you are not packaging static library nor use libltdl.

This, by the way, can't be emphasized enough. As a rule of thumb, don't, in any case, package .la files. As this is a rule of thumb you will see some cases where it's difficult to follow it, as it's meant to describe the ideal world, which of course sometimes conflicts with the real world. But you should go to great lengths to make it happen, including bitching to other package maintainers, those might be the reason why "your" .la can't go away. I say that as a past time developer of libtool, but .la files are not useful in the linux eco-system, so don't package them, they only create problems. Amongst the problems they create are (despite their total uselessness for shared libraries in ELF systems): 1) hardcoded dependency libraries (no matter if necessary or not) 2) hardcoded paths (link-time or run-time) for search paths to libraries, again no matter if necessary or not, those often have to be fixed up during package build time In a way that's basically it. But these problems lead to further deficiencies: too long search paths lead to longer load times of libraries (hence executables), because non-existing libraries have to be "searched". Useless dependencies for shared libraries lead to rebuilds that are not necessary, and generally to a skewed view on the dependency situation between packages. And obviously useless library dependencies have an influence also on package dependencies (creating equally artificial and hence useless ones). And as a side-effect they even lead to longer build times because libtool investigates the information in .la files very thoroughly (to use an euphemism). So, try to get rid of .la files in your packages at great costs. There are some reasons to retain them (static libs come to mind; not much else, not even plugins), but all of these reasons are special cases (we try to get rid of static libs too), so in general they don't apply. Get rid of them. Ciao, Michael. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 07:35:56AM -0400, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:

Michael Matz escribió:

...

But you should go to great lengths to make it happen, including bitching to other package maintainers, those might be the reason why "your" .la can't go away.

Been there, done that ..painful experience. ;-)

Make sure you do this change *only* for factory, i.e. use '%if %suse_version > 1110' at the moment. Otherwise, if this package lives in a devel project, which is also built for older distributions, such a change can and likely will break such older distributions, which are updated from these devel projects. We had this with X11:XOrg. :-( Poor Egbert needed to fix this, since we're using part of X11:XOrg for Moblin ... Best regards, Stefan Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) ----------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On 01/06/09 09:44, Stanislav Brabec wrote:

Michael Matz wrote:

...

I say that as a past time developer of libtool, but .la files are not useful in the linux eco-system, so don't package them, they only create problems.

Would it be possible to patch libtool to not create .la files in elf-linux and patch libltdl to don't depend on them?

Not sure about that, but the patch mentioned in https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=362947 makes the situation slightly better... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

2009/5/28 Cristian Rodríguez :

Cristian Morales Vega escribió:

...

must follow what it says... in which case a -devel package should depend on another one?

When it is using header files from other -devel package.

That really happens? But ok, that makes it clear, thanks to both. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On Thu, 28 May 2009 21:03:28 +0200, you wrote:

That really happens?

Oh sure. In nearly all cases besides glibc (where the corresponding -devel package is always present), you need the -devel package of any library the code in your package directly calls. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org