Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo's plan to remove .la files: wording about when and how to drop .la files

[Pacho Ramos]

El dom, 31-10-2010 a las 14:56 +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò escribió:
> Il giorno dom, 31/10/2010 alle 03.30 -0100, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
> ha scritto:
> > As agreed in the meeting, as a first draft, we have that "the motion
> > is
> > to drop la files, when appropriate, through the use of a function in
> > eutils that will only be called if the static-libs use flag is not set
> > or unless the package relies on pkg-config".
>
> Let's differentiate already:
>
> For *plugin* .la files, they should removed if the software is not
> relying on them to load its plugins, see [1]. This is the case for PAM,
> Python, Ruby and I guess Perl, which commonly receive stupid .la files
> in their paths. Repeat after me: they should just all be deleted _right
> now_ since they are not going to be linked by anyone else and thus
> Portage 2.1.9 is not making any difference.
>

In that case, I think the work on these cases should start as soon as
possible, but I think that getting bugs reported (probably from your
next tinderbox run if possible) would help. For example, I have just
seen in my system that packages like dev-python/pyorbit and
dev-libs/libgamin are installing these .la files that should not be
needed, but I am sure lots of other python packages are also
affected :-/.

But I would also like to know what would be the best way to drop them in
these cases:
- For python, looks like calling python_clean_installation_image from
python.eclass at src_install phase is the proper way.
- For pam, ruby or perl I have no idea :-(

Thanks