Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
Cc: qa@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2019 19:54:08
Message-Id: dea0024cb7db6e1542c3a71330007e2210812293.camel@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from / by Zac Medico
1 On Sun, 2019-11-03 at 11:49 -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
2 > On 10/27/19 10:40 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
3 > > Most upstreams and build systems do not make this distinction, so this
4 > > causes unnecessary hacks in ebuilds.
5 > >
6 > > Signed-off-by: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
7 > > ---
8 > > bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries | 10 ----------
9 > > 1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
10 > >
11 > > diff --git a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
12 > > index d1d2c4fdd..e59369bf6 100644
13 > > --- a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
14 > > +++ b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
15 > > @@ -152,16 +152,6 @@ lib_check() {
16 > > done
17 > > [[ ${abort} == "yes" ]] && die "add those ldscripts"
18 > >
19 > > - # Make sure people don't store libtool files or static libs in /lib
20 > > - f=$(ls "${ED%/}"/lib*/*.{a,la} 2>/dev/null)
21 > > - if [[ -n ${f} ]] ; then
22 > > - __vecho -ne '\n'
23 > > - eqawarn "QA Notice: Excessive files found in the / partition"
24 > > - eqawarn "${f}"
25 > > - __vecho -ne '\n'
26 > > - die "static archives (*.a) and libtool library files (*.la) belong in /usr/lib*, not /lib*"
27 > > - fi
28 > > -
29 > > # Verify that the libtool files don't contain bogus $D entries.
30 > > local abort=no gentoo_bug=no always_overflow=no
31 > > for a in "${ED%/}"/usr/lib*/*.la ; do
32 > >
33 >
34 > Merged. Thanks!
35 >
36 > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/commit/?id=498900e5e51460502d8271f409a4c614a021613b
37 >
38
39 Please revert this. I should point out that this has been vetoed
40 by a QA member, and is currently subject to QA vote. Therefore, I
41 believe you shouldn't be making rash decisions based on patches
42 submitted by a single developer. Especially given that so far nobody
43 else has voiced his opinion either way, so it's 1:1.
44
45 --
46 Best regards,
47 Michał Górny

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies