Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 174261 - popt must not include .la file or be split in popt and popt-devel
Summary: popt must not include .la file or be split in popt and popt-devel
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: rpm
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Paul Nasrat
QA Contact: Mike McLean
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 145978 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2005-11-26 20:52 UTC by Hans de Goede
Modified: 2011-09-21 17:25 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2005-12-07 15:30:29 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Hans de Goede 2005-11-26 20:52:59 UTC 
Hi,

I hit a build problem on x86_64 with some sw I'm trying to package. The real
problem is in the sw but I noticed that the popt.i386 package also installs
libpopt.a libpopt.la and libpopt.so which are ofcourse completly unneeded on a
multilib system where this package is not of the primary lib arch.

Also isn't shipping .la files concidered not done/wanted in Fedora lately?
Comment 1 Hans de Goede 2005-11-26 21:17:52 UTC 
Further research has learned that the real problem is actually in the popt
package. If libtool sees a .la file in both /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 it does
funny things.

When libtool gets passed -lpopt on a link command it passes /usr/lib/libpopt.so
to gcc which of course is wrong on x86_64, it should be /usr/lib64/libpopt.so,
or preferably just -lpopt

Removing the .la file from /usr/lib fixes things for me. Luckily the buildsystem
doesn't have this kinda troubles, still this needs fixing.

Since a split would only save a few bytes I think that dropping the .la file
will suffice.
Comment 2 Paul Nasrat 2005-11-28 14:20:05 UTC 
Changed spec file to %exclude, will be pulled in when the next build of RPM for
rawhide is done.
Comment 3 Radek Vokál 2005-12-07 13:56:23 UTC 
After rpm update I still see that files like librpm.la are having depedency on
lipopt.la. Those should be also removed or excluded.
Comment 4 Paul Nasrat 2005-12-07 15:30:29 UTC 
rpm-4.4.2-11
Comment 5 Rex Dieter 2006-04-26 11:54:27 UTC 
Glad to see the .la files finally removed, despite my report asking for the same
thing (bug #145978) was marked WONTFIX.
Comment 6 Rex Dieter 2006-04-26 11:57:00 UTC 
*** Bug 145978 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2011-09-21 17:22:37 UTC 
kdebase-4.6.5-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kdebase-4.6.5-2.fc14
Comment 8 Rex Dieter 2011-09-21 17:25:48 UTC 
(sorry about the typo'd bodhi spam)
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.