[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: 190 packages with .la file(s)



On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 01:25:08PM +0100, Pierre-Yves wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 13:12 +0100, Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) wrote:
> > > sugar-base-0.86.0-1.fc12.x86_64 : Base Sugar library
> > 
> > I'm co-maintaining it, so I'll try to have a look at this one. 
> 
> I'm just pointing out this : 
> """Note that if you are updating a library in a stable release (not
> devel) and the package already contains *.la files, removing the *.la
> files should be treated as an API/ABI change -- ie: Removing them
> changes the interface that the library gives to the rest of the world
> and should not be undertaken lightly."""
> source:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
> 
The intention here was for people to fix things in rawhide and be cautious
in released versions of Fedora.  Breaking things in rawhide and then
patching to fix them is acceptable.  The most common needed fix is likely
patching plugin loaders to use a plugin name without extension rather than
hardcoding PLUGINNAME.la in.

-Toshio

Attachment: pgpuxK6Xyhx5L.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]