On May 30, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
> On Monday 30 of May 2011, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> On May 30, 2011, at 1:45 PM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
>>> On Monday 30 of May 2011, Tomasz Pala wrote:
While updating my system I've noticed that xorg* packages still got
*.la
On Monday 30 of May 2011, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On May 30, 2011, at 1:45 PM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
> > On Monday 30 of May 2011, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> >> While updating my system I've noticed that xorg* packages still got
> >> *.la files, while they all got *.pc as well.
> >> Are there any oth
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 13:55:21 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> Is it merely a matter of "bravery" or is there still a need for *.la?
>
> I'm asking the engineering, not the advocacy, question here:
> Are *.la files useful?
Yes, they are - for static building. As long as we support this feat
On May 30, 2011, at 1:45 PM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
> On Monday 30 of May 2011, Tomasz Pala wrote:
>> While updating my system I've noticed that xorg* packages still got
>> *.la files, while they all got *.pc as well.
>> Are there any other (not discussed before) reasons not to remove them?
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 19:45:53 +0200, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
>> While updating my system I've noticed that xorg* packages still got
>> *.la files, while they all got *.pc as well.
>> Are there any other (not discussed before) reasons not to remove them?
>> Having *.pc was the main rule allo
On Monday 30 of May 2011, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> While updating my system I've noticed that xorg* packages still got
> *.la files, while they all got *.pc as well.
> Are there any other (not discussed before) reasons not to remove them?
> Having *.pc was the main rule allowing to do this.
No one was
While updating my system I've noticed that xorg* packages still got
*.la files, while they all got *.pc as well.
Are there any other (not discussed before) reasons not to remove them?
Having *.pc was the main rule allowing to do this.
--
Tomasz Pala
__
