Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o>
To: Gentoo Dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/3] xorg-2.eclass: Remove use of prune_libtool_files
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2019 22:00:27
Message-Id: CAJ0EP40KG+fddnWX6Ly3YzTzfntfwvwzGTfmmat_SKucTy71og@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/3] xorg-2.eclass: Remove use of prune_libtool_files by Ulrich Mueller
1 On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 1:37 AM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > >>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Michał Górny wrote:
4 >
5 > > On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 07:20 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
6 > >> > > > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Matt Turner wrote:
7 > >>
8 > >>
9 > >> > # Don't install libtool archives (even for modules)
10 > >> > - prune_libtool_files --all
11 > >> > + find "${D}" -name '*.la' -delete || die
12 > >>
13 > >> Maybe restrict removal to regular files, i.e. add "-type f"?
14 >
15 > > I suppose you should have spoken up when people started adopting that
16 > > 'find' line all over the place. Though I honestly doubt we're going
17 > > to see many packages installing '*.la' non-files.
18 >
19 > I have updated the example in ltprune.eclass now.
20 >
21 > That still won't catch regular non-libtool files, but people needing
22 > additional sanity checks can still use the eclass.
23
24 Perhaps we should un-ban the ltprune eclass for EAPI 7?
25
26 It seems like it would still be useful to have a way of detecting
27 libtool-archives instead of removing any file that ends with ".la".

Replies