Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] autotools-utils.eclass: punt unnecessary .la files even w/ USE=static-libs.
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:52:29
Message-Id: 20110912215148.GB31178@comet
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] autotools-utils.eclass: punt unnecessary .la files even w/ USE=static-libs. by Samuli Suominen
On 00:46 Tue 13 Sep     , Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > If I understand correctly, this will break for any packages that > > don't use pkg-config to link. The maintainers will manually need to > > add pkg-config calls to the ebuilds of anything that could > > statically link against a library using only libtool and not > > pkg-config. Is that accurate? > > Yes, seems accurate. > > I can think of 'export PKG_CONFIG="$($(tc-getPKG_CONFIG) --static)' or > something like 'export FOO_LIBS="$($(tc-getPKG_CONFIG) --libs --static > foo)"' to accomplish getting static flags from an ebuild using > toolchain-funcs.eclass if required. > > Or they do it like lvm2 and cryptsetup at upstream level and add > support for statically linking the tools in the build-system. > > The .la files are not helping packages not using libtool in any case, > for example, those using cmake as build-system. > > And I've yet to see a real, in portage residing, example of where this > would really break anything and when I will, I'll gladly help > migrating it to the example mentioned above... Overall, corner cases > that can be easily worked around, yet punting the *harmful* .la files.
That's rather shocking. All it would take is trying to statically build a package not using pkg-config that links against anything X11-related (since all of them have .pc files). It's probably more that "nobody" cares about static building than that there aren't packages that would break. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Council Member / Sr. Developer Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.com

Replies