On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 12:00:50PM +0200, Patryk Zawadzki wrote: > On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Jakub Bogusz <qbo...@pld-linux.org> wrote: > > So finally - what is the future policy? > > Randomly removing some files or moving to -static makes only mess, > > which is worse than current situation. > > Did anyone check what is the policy for other distros?
Fedora - no .la, no static. Debian - still discussing(?) Arch - "libtool slaying" but I don't know anything about static > > We have some options: > > > > - preserve status quo, keeping *.la in -devel > > It results in trash being passed to linker and sometimes hides missing deps. > > > - remove *.la only for libraries with proper pkgconfig support, keep the > > rest in -devel > > That's just a partial workaround. Well, pkgconfig support for dependency tracking (better than libtool's, in fact) was the most important argument for removing .la (except for dropping static linking support at all). > > - remove all library *.la and -static packages > > I'd like to drop -static from all the desktop packages. We only build > it for the sake of having it. What is the definition of "desktop package"? -- Jakub Bogusz http://qboosh.pl/ _______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
