[oe] [PATCH 3/6] xorg-xserver-common.inc: drop .la files from packages

[Paul Menzel]

Am Samstag, den 09.04.2011, 20:13 +0100 schrieb Phil Blundell:
> On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 11:11 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On 04/09/2011 10:36 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 06:19, Phil Blundell <philb at gnu.org> wrote:
> > >> What would be the use case for having them there?  Nothing ever links
> > >> against them.  I think Otavio is right, they're better off deleted.
> > > 
> > > AFAIK .la files are used for in project linking not when linking with
> > > system or sdk libraries. So I'd prefer to remove them.
> > 
> > .la files have a defined purpose in a development area.  Until / unless
> > we move to globally killing .la files (see Richard talking about this on
> > the poky list a few weeks ago), we should ship these in the -dev
> > package.  If they're broken that probably means something isn't
> > inherit'ing the right class that should be fixing them.
> 
> Well, the point about these particular .la files is that they relate to
> dlopen()ed modules, not to shared libraries that one would wish to link
> against.  So the "defined purpose" doesn't apply to this situation.
> 
> I don't think the files in question are broken, just useless.  It seems
> silly to waste space in the -dev package with them.

I just want to add that Debian is also removed (and is still removing)
*.la files [1] as far as I can see.

Sorry if that does not belong here.


Thanks,

Paul


[1] http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/LAFileRemoval
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/attachments/20110409/357cec5b/attachment-0002.sig>