packages: cairo/cairo-link.patch, cairo/cairo.spec - 1.10.0 - merged from d...

Tomasz Pala gotar at
Thu Sep 9 21:57:39 CEST 2010

On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 21:08:36 +0200, Jakub Bogusz wrote:

>> Or maybe building *-static _should_ require -static and not only -devel?
> Presence of *.a doesn't serve anything for -static building

But .la does. In fact if we didn't support static building we could
simply remove .la, maybe drop -static?

> Well, unfortunately libtool didn't change its mind and uses
> dependency_libs during shared linking too.
> Maybe this is the only thing that should be changed...

Only if pushed upstream - we shouldn't create another
world-incompatibility as we already did a few times.

> Packaging *.la in -static has several faults:
> - content of new .la file depends on presence of *.la files from
>   dependent libraries, so the rule on their precence on builders must be
>   strict.
> - we can't forbid installing _any_ static library on builders - in some
>   rare cases they are used.
> - we don't want to install all *-static on builders from the reasons
>   mentioned above.

Well, seems .la files are just some temporary non-deterministic crap.
There's no place for such files in any subpackage.

> Plus: keeping all *-static containing *.la files on builders is in no
> way better than preevailing situation: *.la files are still "poisoned"
> by obsolete libraries (and thus rebuilding would be still required
> in case of transition like libpng12 -> libpng14 or dropping some
> dependency), and they affect on shared library building (-as-needed
> still needs to be enforced).

Yep. So we should:
1. remove .la entirely,
	2. except for those required by our *-static,
		3. unless we drop static subpackages,
4. or fix our libtool (last resort scenario).

Tomasz Pala <gotar at>

More information about the pld-devel-en mailing list