On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Dirk Mueller wrote: > On Tuesday, 20. February 2007 13:40, Richard Guenther wrote: > > > Most .la files packaged in -devel packages can be removed in case > > static linking is not required. .la files necessary at runtime to > > make ltdlopen work should be packaged in the regular library package. > > in case of libpopt (which for very strange reasons is built by rpm), the .la > file can just be deleted, because it doesn't have additional dependencies.
Indeed. > > Now, whether we should stop packaging static libraries for each and > > every library we have is another (valid) question. > > static libs should at least be in the -devel subpackage and removed if it is > a > library that likely suffers from security vulnerabilities (to avoid that the > code is statically linked into some other package). Well, I doubt we for example ever will need /usr/lib64/libxfce4mcs-client.a which is unfortunately in libxfce4mcs-4.2.3-29 and not a -devel package for example. Care to write a brp-check for .a and .so files not in a -devel package? Richard. -- Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Novell / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
