On Aug 2 22:09, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > Libtool .la files are generally a waste of time and space. They slow down > linking of other libraries with libtool, and they cause otherwise > unnecessary private dependencies to be pulled in by -devel packages. > Therefore, the major distros generally remove them from their packages > unless they are really necessary. > > When we first enabled Cygwin for x86_64, as we had no backwards > compatibility to worry about, I made removing all .la files the default. > AFAIK this has worked well, and any missing link libraries that the presence > thereof would have masked have already been fixed. > > In order to do the same for x86 without breaking builds of other packages, > AFAICS we would need a perpetual postinstall script which will continually > remove them. The downside is that (unless the script is made a *LOT* more > complicated) a number of -devel packages will show up as "Incomplete" until > such time they are rebuilt with a new version of cygport. > > Any objections?
User confusion about incomplete packages? What I wonder is, if cygport builds don't create/install .la files anymore, don't we end up without them at one point anyway? Isn't it sufficient if they go away over time? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
