On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 19:53:52 +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote:
No one was brave enough to rebuild all dependencies on ftp.pld- which would
be
required if la were dropped.
So basically every *.la file that can be safely removed (packages with
*.pc) and is not required by any package we got might
On Tuesday 31 of May 2011, Tomasz Pala wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 19:53:52 +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote:
No one was brave enough to rebuild all dependencies on ftp.pld- which
would be required if la were dropped.
So basically every *.la file that can be safely removed (packages with
*.pc)
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 15:12:11 +0200, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
So basically every *.la file that can be safely removed (packages with
*.pc) and is not required by any package we got might be removed without
any rebuilds? I mean - if some outer la file was polluted it would be
seen in rpm
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 19:45:53 +0200, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
No one was brave enough to rebuild all dependencies on ftp.pld- which would
be
required if la were dropped.
I did some initial changes, especially rebuilded libxkbui with stripped
libxkbfile - or tried to, because BR:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 03:12:11PM +0200, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
On Tuesday 31 of May 2011, Tomasz Pala wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 19:53:52 +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote:
No one was brave enough to rebuild all dependencies on ftp.pld- which
would be required if la were dropped.
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 allowing
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 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 feature
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 other
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 files, while
10 matches
Mail list logo
