Bug 145978

Summary:	remove %_libdir/lib*.la files
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Rex Dieter <rdieter>
Component:	rpm	Assignee:	Jeff Johnson <jbj>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Mike McLean <mikem>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	nobody+pnasrat
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Reopened
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2006-04-26 11:56:15 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Rex Dieter 2005-01-24 14:19:00 UTC

You can safely drop/remove %_libdir/libSDL.la from the package. 
These will reduce libtool/library bloat.

Further, it will (mostly) solve the problem of needing to install
extreneous packages(*) in order to build anything that uses libtool
and rpm-devel.

(*) like libselinux-devel, beecrypt-devel, elfutils-devel

(mostly Library) packages with .la files of their own that
BuildRequires: rpm-devel
(probably) will need to be rebuilt after this modification.

Comment 1 Jeff Johnson 2005-01-24 15:17:43 UTC

I desire *.la files in rpm packaging.

Comment 2 Rex Dieter 2005-01-24 15:38:14 UTC

May ask why?  When it adds no value, and only leads to extraneous
library Requires/linking(*) when anyone uses rpm-devel?

(*) Like the aforementioned libselinux-devel, beecrypt-devel,
elfutils-devel

If you're not going to do it (IMO) the cleanest way (removing the .la
files), at least add to -devel:
Requires: libselinux-devel, beecrypt-devel, elfutils-devel

Comment 3 Jeff Johnson 2005-01-25 19:25:18 UTC

Sure.

For starters, *.la files solve non-linux portability problems,
where, for example, mac os x uses *.dyld rather than *.so.

Also *.la files are a portable alternative for specifying
library <-> library flags. pkg-config is not widely deployed
on non-linux.

And finally, because I find rpm maintenance with *.la easier
than the other, known alternatives.

Comment 4 Rex Dieter 2005-01-25 19:36:21 UTC

Jeff, 

I wasn't suggesting removing the .la files from the rpm tarball/build,
only removing them from the redhat/fedora-core packaging of it (ie,
append to the %install section of the specfile:
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/lib*.la

Comment 5 Rex Dieter 2006-04-26 11:54:35 UTC

Nice to see the .la files were finally removed (see bug #174261 comment 2,3).

Comment 6 Rex Dieter 2006-04-26 11:56:15 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 174261 ***