Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (63 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] .la files and dependencies, again
  • From: Andreas Jaeger <aj@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:08:13 +0100
  • Message-id: <ho649wly5u.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Richard Guenther <rguenther@xxxxxxx> writes:

> 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.

So, Dirk and Richard: will either of you do it, please?

>> > 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?

Yes, I agree,
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger, aj@xxxxxxx, http://www.suse.de/~aj/
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
< Previous Next >