Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] autotools-utils.eclass: punt unnecessary .la files even w/ USE=static-libs.
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:47:00
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] autotools-utils.eclass: punt unnecessary .la files even w/ USE=static-libs. by Donnie Berkholz
On 09/13/2011 12:00 AM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 21:57 Mon 12 Sep , Michał Górny wrote: >> Right now, autotools-utils.eclass punts .la files only with >> USE=-static-libs. We'd like to broaden the range of it and strip .la >> files when they are not necessary for static linkage as well. >> >> The following patch introduces an initial support for that. It assumes >> that the .la file can be removed if the library is mentioned in any of >> pkg-config files installed by the package, or if doesn't specify any >> dependency libs nor linker flags. > > If I understand correctly, this will break for any packages that don't > use pkg-config to link. The maintainers will manually need to add > pkg-config calls to the ebuilds of anything that could statically link > against a library using only libtool and not pkg-config. Is that > accurate?
Yes, seems accurate. I can think of 'export PKG_CONFIG="$($(tc-getPKG_CONFIG) --static)' or something like 'export FOO_LIBS="$($(tc-getPKG_CONFIG) --libs --static foo)"' to accomplish getting static flags from an ebuild using toolchain-funcs.eclass if required. Or they do it like lvm2 and cryptsetup at upstream level and add support for statically linking the tools in the build-system. The .la files are not helping packages not using libtool in any case, for example, those using cmake as build-system. And I've yet to see a real, in portage residing, example of where this would really break anything and when I will, I'll gladly help migrating it to the example mentioned above... Overall, corner cases that can be easily worked around, yet punting the *harmful* .la files. - Samuli