| 1 |
Le 03/10/2010 16:29, Luca Barbato a écrit : |
| 2 |
> I think the simpler solution is that if it needs .la, before reaching |
| 3 |
> the tree it has to be fixed... |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Using libltdl (libtool's dlopen wrapper) is a *legitimate* use of .la |
| 6 |
files. Those programs do not need to be fixed as they are not broken. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The discussion here is about random apps and libs, that install .la |
| 9 |
files for no other reason that they were *built* using libtool. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Such programs will work just fine without .la files. The only risk is |
| 12 |
breaking : |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
1) building other packages (see the dbus bug) |
| 15 |
2) building *static* programs/libs |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
#1 can be "fixed" using lafilefixer which sanitizes .la files so that |
| 18 |
they stop referencing other .la files. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
#2 is harder : |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
#2a) pkg-config is one solution (what upstream Xorg says: "if you want a |
| 23 |
static libX11, use pkg-config --static"), other teams/herds could fix |
| 24 |
their packages' .pc files to correctly list all required packages for |
| 25 |
proper static linking. It's not rocket science. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
#2b) drop support for static linking altogether. It can make sense for |
| 28 |
some packages, but definitely isn't suitable for the entire portage tree. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
So again, these are the only 2 issues we should be addressing. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Cheers, |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Rémi |
Archives