Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (63 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] .la files and dependencies, again
  • From: Richard Guenther <rguenther@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:53:57 +0100 (CET)
  • Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702201451390.18923@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Dirk Mueller wrote:

> On Tuesday, 20. February 2007 13:40, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > Most .la files packaged in -devel packages can be removed in case
> > static linking is not required. .la files necessary at runtime to
> > make ltdlopen work should be packaged in the regular library package.
>
> in case of libpopt (which for very strange reasons is built by rpm), the .la
> file can just be deleted, because it doesn't have additional dependencies.

Indeed.

> > Now, whether we should stop packaging static libraries for each and
> > every library we have is another (valid) question.
>
> static libs should at least be in the -devel subpackage and removed if it is a
> library that likely suffers from security vulnerabilities (to avoid that the
> code is statically linked into some other package).

Well, I doubt we for example ever will need

/usr/lib64/libxfce4mcs-client.a

which is unfortunately in libxfce4mcs-4.2.3-29 and not a -devel package
for example. Care to write a brp-check for .a and .so files not in a
-devel package?

Richard.

--
Richard Guenther <rguenther@xxxxxxx>
Novell / SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >