[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Old Release goal: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs



On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 14:57:22 +0200
Mathieu Parent <math.parent@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 2011/4/3 Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org>:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/08/msg00808.html
> >
> (...)
> >
> > Let's try and handle the .la file issue across all of Debian.
> 
> dh-make 0.58 install .la files by default
> (/usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/debianl/package-dev.install contains
> "usr/lib/*.la")

This is about "unneeded" .la files. As Sune points out, there are some
situations where it is more work to remove the .la file than it is
worth. So it isn't a blanket removal, it is about getting a consistent
approach across Debian so that issues like the one Sune describes can
be more clearly identified.

dh_make does not set the defaults in Debian. Maintainers must make
their own decisions about which bits of a dh_make setup deserve to be
retained in their packaging of that package, according to Policy.
Policy 10.2 is the discussion point here. Since Policy 10.2 was last
updated, Multi-Arch has changed the "penalty" for getting this bit of
Policy wrong. 

This is about identifying .la files which can be removed to make
things easier in Multi-Arch world.

> Should we change this also?

It is possible that a lintian warning can be arranged to indicate when
it might be unhelpful to package the .la file but that is no different
to lots of other bits of dh_make which are created at initial packaging
but which later need removal or adjustment.

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgpwI6SQii0kA.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: