| 1 |
Il giorno mer, 06/10/2010 alle 21.45 -0700, Alec Warner ha scritto: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Because of the above, adding a toggle to roll back the change seems |
| 4 |
> like a reasonable request. If the idea is to add a remove_la_files |
| 5 |
> type function to eutils then the toggle can be added in a centralized |
| 6 |
> place. If this change goes horribly awry and breaks the distribution |
| 7 |
> (or some subset of users) everyone has an easy revert (set some envvar |
| 8 |
> and rebuild everything...) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Do note: I have nothing against using a single function to wrap around |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
find "${D}" -name '*.la' -delete |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
it works pretty nicely also to avoid removing them for the eventual |
| 15 |
platforms needing them (that is, if Prefix is interested in keeping them |
| 16 |
around for any platform at all). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
What I am against is _exposing the functionality to users_ (i.e. an USE |
| 19 |
flag), as that is just going to confuse them and give us more hadaches |
| 20 |
than it's worth. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If I cannot vouch for the entirety of the software base out there, I'm |
| 23 |
still pretty sure it's the right way to do it for one reason: I've spent |
| 24 |
three years writing, talking, and trying the .la files removal. Plus the |
| 25 |
time I spent trying to deal with them between Gentoo/FreeBSD and |
| 26 |
xine-lib. And I compared notes with other distributions. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Okay so maybe I come out a bit too strong; on the other hand I do find |
| 29 |
it tremendously off-putting that people who have a vague idea of how the |
| 30 |
files are consumed get to tell me that they should be kept for the sake |
| 31 |
of it (or all deleted for the sake of it as well). |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes” |
| 35 |
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is, |
| 38 |
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/ |
Archives