| 1 |
On 05/06/13 00:09, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 2 |
> It lacks a maintainer for a long time, also has some opened bugs and I |
| 3 |
> am unsure if it's still needed. I am not using it for months and never |
| 4 |
> saw any problem, also, portage fixes .la files by itself, and paludis |
| 5 |
> people don't approve lafilefixer. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Do we still need it? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
+1 for dropping it as... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
- gentoo-x86/ has been massively cleaned up with punting of .la files |
| 12 |
- -Wl,--as-needed is enabled by default for ages |
| 13 |
- portage's own .la file fixing |
| 14 |
- emptying of some dependency_libs='' in tree |
| 15 |
- the 'coming' GNU gold linker being even more stricter than -Wl,--as-needed |
| 16 |
- majority of `lafilefixer` users propably emerged it by accident, |
| 17 |
thinking it's some magic bullet for their .la file problem, which it's not |
Archives