Richard Guenther
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@suse.de, 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