Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
So, Dirk and Richard: will either of you do it, please? >> > 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? Yes, I agree, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
pgpUt2nwMBh2G.pgp
Description: PGP signature
