Re: RFC: "Include .la files" rule for packages - revisited

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 01:48 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> This changes the .la/.so matter a good bit IMO. Where are we now? Do
> we still delete .la files till we find out that it breaks something at
> run-time? Or do we include .la files (it's a policy for Debian, isn't
> it?) till we find that something doesn't build? What is worse?

I still think including them is definitely wrong for libraries that
support pkg-config.

We're pretty inconsistent about it though, "ls /usr/lib/*.la" is far
from empty.

Havoc