1 |
Frank Peters posted on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:24:04 -0400 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:08:58 +0000 (UTC) |
4 |
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> |
7 |
>> FWIW, I've been using a PKG_INSTALL_MASK="*.la" setting here in my |
8 |
>> make.conf for some time, now. That keeps portage from installing the |
9 |
>> files entirely. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> |
12 |
> That's a good suggestion, but there is one minor problem remaining. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Although I rely on portage to do all the "heavy lifting" for me, there |
15 |
> is a small number of packages that I, for various reasons, still want to |
16 |
> install myself -- and I'm sure there are lots of others that do this as |
17 |
> well. These self-installed packages will often insert .la files into |
18 |
> the tree, and, in fact, I believe that this kind of condition had caused |
19 |
> my original ".la file not found" problem. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> So the .la issue is definitely something for everyone to keep in mind, |
22 |
> and especially for those who may self-install an occasional extra |
23 |
> package. |
24 |
|
25 |
Question: Why don't you create (or modify the gentoo/overlay tree |
26 |
version, if you can find one) an ebuild which does the installation using |
27 |
portage? That way it still tracks it, and provided you keep reasonable |
28 |
dependencies in the ebuild, it'll track them too. |
29 |
|
30 |
FWIW, there's a couple things I install privately. One is a live net-nntp/ |
31 |
pan, from the khaley repo, testing branch, for which I created an ebuild, |
32 |
which of course would eliminate the *.la files if any (it's a leaf |
33 |
executable package, no such files, but if there were...). The other is |
34 |
the kernel, for which I use my own non-ebuild scripts and package.provided |
35 |
a 2.6.9999 kernel for portage dependency purposes. Of course the kernel |
36 |
doesn't have *.la files to worry about... =:^) |
37 |
|
38 |
Otherwise, I'd no-doubt script the build and installation using my own |
39 |
scripts, for much the same reason I have with the kernel -- it's a |
40 |
repeated action that lends itself to automation -- and appending a find- |
41 |
and-delete on *.la files step to such a script would be reasonably |
42 |
trivial, once I had automated the rest of the process. |
43 |
|
44 |
Or just script lafilefixer after the install, but I'd probably go the |
45 |
delete route, myself, just 'cause I'm tired of *.la file headaches and the |
46 |
less I have to see or deal with the things, the happier I am! |
47 |
|
48 |
But you're right, that's something to think about, for those libraries |
49 |
(the only type of package that really has *.la files) you build yourself. |
50 |
|
51 |
-- |
52 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
53 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
54 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |