| 1 |
On Sat, 2019-03-02 at 16:59 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 1:37 AM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > > > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 07:20 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > > # Don't install libtool archives (even for modules) |
| 7 |
> > > > > - prune_libtool_files --all |
| 8 |
> > > > > + find "${D}" -name '*.la' -delete || die |
| 9 |
> > > > |
| 10 |
> > > > Maybe restrict removal to regular files, i.e. add "-type f"? |
| 11 |
> > > I suppose you should have spoken up when people started adopting that |
| 12 |
> > > 'find' line all over the place. Though I honestly doubt we're going |
| 13 |
> > > to see many packages installing '*.la' non-files. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > I have updated the example in ltprune.eclass now. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > That still won't catch regular non-libtool files, but people needing |
| 18 |
> > additional sanity checks can still use the eclass. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Perhaps we should un-ban the ltprune eclass for EAPI 7? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> It seems like it would still be useful to have a way of detecting |
| 23 |
> libtool-archives instead of removing any file that ends with ".la". |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
How many valid cases for this are there? For comparison, how many |
| 27 |
useless complexity will be added to ebuilds by thoughtless maintainers |
| 28 |
using the first thing that seems to work without actually verifying |
| 29 |
whether it is necessary? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Because as far as I can see, we're talking about maybe-one-package- |
| 32 |
every-decade vs 90%+ ebuilds removing .la files. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Best regards, |
| 36 |
Michał Górny |
Archives