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.
I desire *.la files in rpm packaging.
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
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.
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
Nice to see the .la files were finally removed (see bug #174261 comment 2,3).
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 174261 ***