Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: flameeyes@gmail.com (Diego 'Flameeyes' =?utf-8?Q?Petten=C3=B2?=)
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Removing .la files...
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:18:48
Message-Id: m2ve2dppis.fsf@gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Removing .la files... by "Wulf C. Krueger"
1 As those who _did_ ask me directly why I decided to do this did not
2 think it was worth mailing - as they didn't - I suppose I should chime
3 in now.
4
5 Leaving alone what Petteri already said, this was intended to be a
6 change on a series of single packages, the domino effect that happened I
7 didn't foresee, on my system it was just a matter of five packages and a
8 quick look at the revdeps didn't show _such_ an effect. Well maybe I
9 expected a few problems with libogg, but yeah that doesn't seem to be
10 the problem here, the problem seems to be with popt. For what popt is
11 used (parsing of command-line options) I didn't expect it to creep in in
12 so many libraries.
13
14 And as the problem does not break any system - systems will still run
15 perfectly - and can be solved with ease - just run a revdep-rebuild - I
16 did consider this a pretty minor drawback on the whole.
17
18 libogg and popt are now masked, and they'll wait a bit before return to
19 ~arch that way. libmpcdec, libmad have very few library users so I don't
20 expect major problems with those and I left them untouched. Same for
21 libpam which should really _not_ be used by libraries beside a few very
22 rare cases, if it was there is something _very_ broken.
23
24 Probably the best thing would be to get a better tool than
25 revdep-rebuild to handle broken .la files, as revdep-rebuild forces a
26 timewasting rebuild, while a good fix could be just a sed -i -e
27 's:/usr/lib\(64\)\?/lib\(.*\).la:-l\2:' on all the .la files, installed
28 and being-installed.
29
30 By the way, asking a question is not poisonous.
31
32
33 "Wulf C. Krueger" <philantrop@g.o> writes:
34
35 > Especially since even though removing .la files might make sense (with
36 > exceptions, of course) we should think about either doing it
37 > distribution-wide or not at all.
38
39 Can't be done distribution-wide, as stuff would break way worse than
40 this for sure (stuff is not going to link, or will fail at runtime). You
41 _have_ to do it on a case-by-case basis.
42
43 --
44 Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
45 http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Removing .la files... "Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Removing .la files... "Wulf C. Krueger" <philantrop@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Removing .la files... Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Removing .la files... Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o>