| 1 |
On Wednesday 26 of May 2010 19:27:43 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 26 May 2010 05:38:00 Maciej Mrozowski wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I've updated documentation, added example usage and option to keep |
| 4 |
> > libtool files (ltdl.so supposedly needs those as I was told, no idea |
| 5 |
> > what for). |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> more applicable to us w/Linux is that static linking with libtool needs |
| 8 |
> them. the AUTOTOOLS_KEEP_LA_FILES seems kind of spurious considering |
| 9 |
> current tree behavior and assumption of gnu-capable linking systems. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
It is spurious when we forget about run-time dynamic linking (plugins) in some |
| 12 |
apps. |
| 13 |
libtool loader (ltdl.so) needs .la files unfortunately. One example - |
| 14 |
imagemagick - removing .la files for coders makes 'convert' unable to locate |
| 15 |
them (silly, but hey...). |
| 16 |
Using autotools-utils for such packages would mean: |
| 17 |
- either not having static-libs in IUSE - barely acceptable |
| 18 |
- or having static-libs in IUSE but overriding all autotools-utils provided |
| 19 |
phases that make some actions depending on that USE flag - barely convenient |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
(or not using this eclass, but like I said - I'd prefer it was able to |
| 22 |
obsolete all other autotools related eclasses - for ebuild API unification |
| 23 |
purpose - in such case it would be adopted by base-system@ most likely - hmm |
| 24 |
but then I'd need to add '<'EAPI-2 support, and it means src_unpack which I |
| 25 |
want to avoid) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Since .la files aren't unfortunately exclusively related to static libs, I |
| 28 |
think it's better to have a simple option to keep .la files and be able to |
| 29 |
produce static libs in straightforward way even when this option for most |
| 30 |
cases would be simply redundant. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
regards |
| 34 |
MM |
Archives