FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-31-2008, 06:46 PM
"Debarshi Ray"
 
Default Dia has .la files

I noticed that the dia package has %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.la files. Any
particular reason for them to be there? Doesn't guidelines ask us to
remove them?

Cheerio,
Debarshi

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-31-2008, 06:55 PM
"Colin Walters"
 
Default Dia has .la files

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Debarshi Ray <debarshi.ray@gmail.com> wrote:
> I noticed that the dia package has %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.la files. Any
> particular reason for them to be there? Doesn't guidelines ask us to
> remove them?

Yes, please remove them. We should not encourage the libtool agenda
to redefine how shared libraries work on our platform.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-31-2008, 08:12 PM
"Jerry James"
 
Default Dia has .la files

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Debarshi Ray <debarshi.ray@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I noticed that the dia package has %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.la files. Any
>> particular reason for them to be there? Doesn't guidelines ask us to
>> remove them?
>
> Yes, please remove them. We should not encourage the libtool agenda
> to redefine how shared libraries work on our platform.

I've got quite a collection of .la files under /usr/lib64 on my Fedora
9 x86_64 machine. All of the following packages contain at least one
.la file:

alsa-lib
apr-devel
apr-util-devel
arts
banshee
bluez-utils
brasero
db4-devel
db4-java
db4-tcl
directfb
gamin-python
gdesklets
ghostscript-devel
gnome-bluetooth-libs
GraphicsMagick
gtkglextmm-devel
gutenprint
hplip
ImageMagick
imlib2
imlib2-devel
libesmtp
libieee1284-devel
libstatgrab-devel
libtool-ltdl-devel
libxml2-python
nfs-utils-lib
opensp-devel
pinball
planner
subversion-devel
subversion-javahl

--
Jerry James
http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-31-2008, 08:12 PM
"Jerry James"
 
Default Dia has .la files

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Debarshi Ray <debarshi.ray@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I noticed that the dia package has %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.la files. Any
>> particular reason for them to be there? Doesn't guidelines ask us to
>> remove them?
>
> Yes, please remove them. We should not encourage the libtool agenda
> to redefine how shared libraries work on our platform.

I've got quite a collection of .la files under /usr/lib64 on my Fedora
9 x86_64 machine. All of the following packages contain at least one
.la file:

alsa-lib
apr-devel
apr-util-devel
arts
banshee
bluez-utils
brasero
db4-devel
db4-java
db4-tcl
directfb
gamin-python
gdesklets
ghostscript-devel
gnome-bluetooth-libs
GraphicsMagick
gtkglextmm-devel
gutenprint
hplip
ImageMagick
imlib2
imlib2-devel
libesmtp
libieee1284-devel
libstatgrab-devel
libtool-ltdl-devel
libxml2-python
nfs-utils-lib
opensp-devel
pinball
planner
subversion-devel
subversion-javahl

--
Jerry James
http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-31-2008, 08:21 PM
"Colin Walters"
 
Default Dia has .la files

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Jerry James <loganjerry@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Debarshi Ray <debarshi.ray@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I noticed that the dia package has %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.la files. Any
>>> particular reason for them to be there? Doesn't guidelines ask us to
>>> remove them?
>>
>> Yes, please remove them. We should not encourage the libtool agenda
>> to redefine how shared libraries work on our platform.
>
> I've got quite a collection of .la files under /usr/lib64 on my Fedora
> 9 x86_64 machine. All of the following packages contain at least one
> .la file:

Really we need a post-build (BRP) hook in RPM to nuke them instead of
copy&paste of rm into spec files.

The ideal of course would be to convince libtool upstream that trying
to change the entire world to use libtool makes a lot less sense than
having those few modules that interact with shared libraries have
platform-specific code.

-- Colin, who spent too much time this week battling libtool while
working on http://live.gnome.org/GObjectIntrospection/

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-31-2008, 08:30 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default Dia has .la files

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 05:21:55PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> Really we need a post-build (BRP) hook in RPM to nuke them instead of
> copy&paste of rm into spec files.
>
> The ideal of course would be to convince libtool upstream that trying
> to change the entire world to use libtool makes a lot less sense than
> having those few modules that interact with shared libraries have
> platform-specific code.

There are still some (rare) cases that need the .la files. Maybe not in
%_libdir, but I don't think this is right to do this change in rpm
%scripts, better fix libtool.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-31-2008, 10:15 PM
"Dan Nicholson"
 
Default Dia has .la files

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org> wrote:
>
> The ideal of course would be to convince libtool upstream that trying
> to change the entire world to use libtool makes a lot less sense than
> having those few modules that interact with shared libraries have
> platform-specific code.

The libtool developers understand that the .la files aren't needed in
normal operation. The reason that they insist on keeping them is so
that `make uninstall' works since the .la files are the only place
that store information about the actual libraries (.so + links vs. .a,
etc.).

--
Dan

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-31-2008, 10:17 PM
"Colin Walters"
 
Default Dia has .la files

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Dan Nicholson <dbn.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org> wrote:
>>
>> The ideal of course would be to convince libtool upstream that trying
>> to change the entire world to use libtool makes a lot less sense than
>> having those few modules that interact with shared libraries have
>> platform-specific code.
>
> The libtool developers understand that the .la files aren't needed in
> normal operation. The reason that they insist on keeping them is so
> that `make uninstall' works since the .la files are the only place
> that store information about the actual libraries (.so + links vs. .a,
> etc.).

Right - we have a "make uninstall", it's called "rpm -e".

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-31-2008, 10:24 PM
"Dan Nicholson"
 
Default Dia has .la files

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Dan Nicholson <dbn.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> The ideal of course would be to convince libtool upstream that trying
>>> to change the entire world to use libtool makes a lot less sense than
>>> having those few modules that interact with shared libraries have
>>> platform-specific code.
>>
>> The libtool developers understand that the .la files aren't needed in
>> normal operation. The reason that they insist on keeping them is so
>> that `make uninstall' works since the .la files are the only place
>> that store information about the actual libraries (.so + links vs. .a,
>> etc.).
>
> Right - we have a "make uninstall", it's called "rpm -e".

OK, now convince the libtool developers to break everyone's `make
distcheck'. Might be tough. But I certainly would support a way to opt
out of that situation at build time. Something like:

export LIBTOOLFLAGS="--no-installed-la-files"

--
Dan

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-31-2008, 10:32 PM
"Colin Walters"
 
Default Dia has .la files

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Dan Nicholson <dbn.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> OK, now convince the libtool developers to break everyone's `make
> distcheck'.

Or alternatively convince the automake people that it shouldn't be in
the business of software lifecycle management (make uninstall) any
more than people should be coding/overriding build systems (make;make
install) inside RPM spec files. This seems possible; probably worth
trying to at least have an environment variable AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS =
i-dont-need-uninstall.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:30 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org