| 1 |
05.06.2013 01:16, Samuli Suominen пишет: |
| 2 |
> On 05/06/13 00:09, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 3 |
>> It lacks a maintainer for a long time, also has some opened bugs and I |
| 4 |
>> am unsure if it's still needed. I am not using it for months and never |
| 5 |
>> saw any problem, also, portage fixes .la files by itself, and paludis |
| 6 |
>> people don't approve lafilefixer. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Do we still need it? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> +1 for dropping it as... |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> - gentoo-x86/ has been massively cleaned up with punting of .la files |
| 13 |
> - -Wl,--as-needed is enabled by default for ages |
| 14 |
> - portage's own .la file fixing |
| 15 |
> - emptying of some dependency_libs='' in tree |
| 16 |
> - the 'coming' GNU gold linker being even more stricter than |
| 17 |
> -Wl,--as-needed |
| 18 |
> - majority of `lafilefixer` users propably emerged it by accident, |
| 19 |
> thinking it's some magic bullet for their .la file problem, which it's not |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I have masked it. And by the way, i have discovered installed |
| 23 |
lafilefixer on one of my desktops(but not on servers), so yeah, probably |
| 24 |
i forgot to unmerge it a long time ago ;-) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Best regards, Sergey Popov |
| 28 |
Gentoo developer |
| 29 |
Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead |
| 30 |
Gentoo Qt project lead |
Archives