| 1 |
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 23:18:56 +0200 |
| 2 |
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> El jue, 28-06-2012 a las 10:26 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: |
| 5 |
> > On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:12:34 +0300 |
| 6 |
> > Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > > The logic in prune_libtool_files is not perfect[1]. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Define 'perfect'. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > > To clarify: |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > Use `prune_libtool_files --all` instead of plain |
| 15 |
> > > `prune_libtool_files` if you don't test the package with the USE |
| 16 |
> > > flags. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > Sounds like abuse of '--all' to me. It's like calling 'rm -r' for |
| 19 |
> > single file... |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > > [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/421197 |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> But we will need to use "--all" in cases like pointed in that bug |
| 25 |
> report, no? :/ |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
You need to use it if the package passes '-module' to libtool, |
| 28 |
and doesn't use plugin loader which uses .la files (ltdl, gmodule). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
The main point is that installing _those_ .la files doesn't do any harm |
| 31 |
to the system (they can't be linked against). Removing them may (for |
| 32 |
example, in ImageMagick). |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
It's sad that people start running with pitchforks when they see |
| 35 |
anything looking like .la without really understanding what it does. |
| 36 |
And yes, I already had users removing all *.la files and then |
| 37 |
complaining programs no longer work... |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Best regards, |
| 41 |
Michał Górny |
Archives