Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship

Installation:
Gentoo Handbook
Installation Docs

Documentation:
Home
Listing
About Gentoo
Philosophy
Social Contract

Resources:
Bug Tracker
Developer List
Discussion Forums
Gentoo BitTorrents
Gentoo Linux Enhancement Proposals
IRC Channels
Mailing Lists
Mirrors
Name and Logo Guidelines
Online Package Database
Security Announcements
Staffing Needs
Supporting Vendors
View our CVS

Graphics:
Logos and themes
Icons
ScreenShots

Miscellaneous Resources:
Gentoo Linux Store
Gentoo-hosted projects
IBM dW/Intel article archive




List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Steve Long <slong@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:19:29 +0000
Peter Alfredsen wrote:

> I've given this some thought and I think I've been convinced that
> dberkholz' position is probably the most tenable. If this is to be
> done, we should do it in a documented "Gentooish" way. The problem with
> going down the FEATURES road are two-fold:
> 1) What should the behavior of the FEATURES flag be?
> 
> I think it should act like an INSTALL_MASK="*.la" and
> EXTRA_ECONF="--disable-static"
> 
> There should also be a function, let's call it "exemptthis.la" that
> would exempt a .la file from being punted, so the RESTRICT could be
> made on a per-la file basis.
>
If it's a FEATURE defaulting to off, which makes sense from the opt-in
perspective, surely a simple Property would do the job for most cases?
 
> 2) Who implements in portage?
> 
> [...I know nothing of portage internals...]
>
Properties are bedded in, all you need is a bit of BASH, to be run for those
packages you maintain; and to add the functionality you mentioned above,
etc.
 
> 3) Grunt work?
> 
> This should be rather easy. Just assign the bugs to me and I shall add
> RESTRICTs as-needed.
>
Might be wise to prove it on a smaller subset first, for those packages
where you know it's not going to cause an issue, and if it did it wouldn't
cause a machine to be unbootable. (Personally I'd understand a user being
peeved if they couldn't get their desktop up, but it's not that big a deal
provided there's an easy command to run to fix it, and there's notice
given; this is Gentoo, after all.)
 
> Anyway, we really need to start punting .la files one way or the other.
> For desktop users of our distro, they do a lot more harm than good. For
> embedded, perhaps static linking serves some purpose, but really, if
> you can't afford dynamic linking, what are you going to run on your
> board?
> 
Libtool is sweet from a software developer's pov, especially in its heyday.
OFC it might cause distros a bit of aggro, but hey you get to decide what
to patch and how. I'm in favour so long as it is only ever an opt-in, or
not enabled in anything but developer or desktop/Linux profiles (the latter
after at least a year or two of testing and bug resolution.)




References:
Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass
-- Peter Alfredsen
Re: Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass
-- Peter Alfredsen
Re: Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass
-- Ryan Hill
Re: Re: Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass
-- Peter Alfredsen
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass
Next by thread:
Re: Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass
Previous by date:
Re: Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds
Next by date:
Please avoid absolute paths in patched filenames


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Donate to support our development efforts.

Gentoo Centric Hosting: vr.org

VR Hosted

Tek Alchemy

Tek Alchemy

SevenL.net

SevenL.net

php|architect

php|architect

Copyright 2001-2007 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Email www@gentoo.org.