| 1 |
On 10/23/2011 05:01 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: |
| 2 |
> 2011/10/23 Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o>: |
| 3 |
>> On 10/23/2011 04:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On 10/23/2011 03:00 PM, Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> scarabeus 11/10/23 12:00:55 |
| 7 |
>>>>> |
| 8 |
>>>>> Modified: ChangeLog cdparanoia-3.10.2-r3.ebuild |
| 9 |
>>>>> Log: |
| 10 |
>>>>> Bump to eapi4 and punt static libs. |
| 11 |
>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>> Time to revert this commit as I don't see anything in the ebuild that |
| 13 |
>>>> disables building the static archives at compile phase. |
| 14 |
>>>> |
| 15 |
>>>> This is same as hiding the problem, not solving it. Not the way we do |
| 16 |
>>>> things at sound@. |
| 17 |
>>>> |
| 18 |
>>>>> + use static-libs || find "${ED}" -name '*.a' -exec rm -f {} + |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>>> Doesn't reverting this seem a bit like shooting yourself in the foot |
| 21 |
>>> to remove an ingrown toenail? |
| 22 |
>>> |
| 23 |
>>> Unless I'm missing something this DOES get rid of the unneeded |
| 24 |
>>> archives. Now, sure, you'd save a few milliseconds of CPU if they |
| 25 |
>>> weren't built in the first place. However, you're proposing replacing |
| 26 |
>>> an ebuild that builds but doesn't install undesired files with one |
| 27 |
>>> that builds them AND installs them (since the hypothetical ebuild that |
| 28 |
>>> does neither doesn't exist yet). |
| 29 |
>>> |
| 30 |
>>> Perfection shouldn't hold us back from improvement. By all means open |
| 31 |
>>> up a bug asking for the next level of improvement if it really bothers |
| 32 |
>>> people. |
| 33 |
>>> |
| 34 |
>>> Now, if there is some subtle issue that causes issues during build if |
| 35 |
>>> the files are there and only removed at the last minute then clearly |
| 36 |
>>> that is a bigger problem. |
| 37 |
>> |
| 38 |
>> If you only wanted to remove these files, you are free to use |
| 39 |
>> INSTALL_MASK locally instead of downgrading the quality of tree. |
| 40 |
>> |
| 41 |
>> Do you have any idea how much time me, and aballier spent to make |
| 42 |
>> cdparanoia's build system as clean as it is now? And then to coordinate |
| 43 |
>> them with upstream xiph.org? |
| 44 |
>> Then I see this... Not acceptable by any standards. |
| 45 |
>> |
| 46 |
>> |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> So you would rather see me patch the makefile to drop the slib targets |
| 49 |
> conditionaly or alter whole src_compile to not run all but just lib on |
| 50 |
> the required options? |
| 51 |
> Both will take more space in the ebuild.... |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Setting make targets in src_compile sounds fine for this package. And |
| 54 |
altering the build system to allow that if it already doesn't. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
> Or should I actually make the build system correct and rewrite it into |
| 57 |
> automake to use libtool? |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Considering how hard it has been to make xiph.org accept patches, this |
| 60 |
would propably be waste of time. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
> Anyway for they yajl i tried to submit patches for the build system |
| 63 |
> once and upstream is not interested so this is clear solution to solve |
| 64 |
> the issue without me having to patch half of the CMakeLists.txt. |
| 65 |
> |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
USE=static-libs is about preventing the building of static archives, not |
| 68 |
only about installing them, so if you don't want to patch the build |
| 69 |
system for whatever reason, just leave it be. |
Archives