| 1 |
Wulf C. Krueger wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello! |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I think flameeyes should have sent this himself in the first place, but |
| 5 |
> since he's clearly not going to do that and prefers to just force it on |
| 6 |
> our users I'm mailing this... |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> flameeyes talked about .la files in his blog recently: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> http://blog.flameeyes.eu/articles/2008/04/14/what-about-those-la-files |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Now he decided that simply removing them for several packages, resulting |
| 13 |
> in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218286 and its dupes. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> This is annoying for quite a few users as they will have to rebuild lots |
| 16 |
> of stuff for KDE, Gnome and other packages and I'm not sure if this is |
| 17 |
> really the way we want to fix --as-needed failures. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
That or just remove the other .la. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Furthermore, such things should not be decided and pushed through |
| 22 |
> unilaterally but be agreed upon here prior to doing this change. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Agreed, even if it is relatively low profile IMHO. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Especially since even though removing .la files might make sense (with |
| 27 |
> exceptions, of course) we should think about either doing it |
| 28 |
> distribution-wide or not at all. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I'll put as item for the council meeting if we don't reach consensus before. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
In the other news I advise to start asking library upstreams to provide |
| 33 |
pkgconfig files (and/or push patches providing that). |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
lu |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Luca Barbato |
| 40 |
Gentoo Council Member |
| 41 |
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC |
| 42 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives