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 |