| 1 |
On Friday 15 June 2012 12:52:56 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:11:58 -0400 wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Friday 15 June 2012 09:32:18 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > # Remove static libs we're not supposed to link |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > against. if grep -q '^shouldnotlink=yes$' "${f}"; then |
| 7 |
> > > - einfo "Removing unnecessary |
| 8 |
> > > ${archivefile#${D%/}}" |
| 9 |
> > > - rm -f "${archivefile}" |
| 10 |
> > > + if [[ -f ${archivefile} ]]; then |
| 11 |
> > > + einfo "Removing unnecessary |
| 12 |
> > > ${archivefile#${D%/}} (static |
| 13 |
> > plugin)" |
| 14 |
> > > + rm -f "${archivefile}" |
| 15 |
> > > + fi |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > highly unlikely, but this would skip symlinks that are broken in $D, |
| 18 |
> > but valid once merged into $ROOT |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Are you suggesting || -L? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
if you want to be pessimistic that someday this might happen, then yeah. or |
| 23 |
just leave it and wait for someone to complain. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Not that I see a case where an external-symlink .a is installed alongside |
| 26 |
> local .la file... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
true. probably not common (or even uncommon), but not impossible. |
| 29 |
-mike |
Archives