Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Cc: qa@g.o, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 17:58:07
Message-Id: 2bb46a1e119cd3e3ca19dd8935d1f72decca9337.camel@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from / by William Hubbs
1 On Sun, 2019-10-27 at 12:40 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
2 > Most upstreams and build systems do not make this distinction, so this
3 > causes unnecessary hacks in ebuilds.
4 >
5
6 The hacks aren't 'unnecessary'. There is a very good reason that files
7 that are used *purely at build time* don't land in /. That reason is
8 disk space. Even if people nowadays are forced to use initramfs with
9 separate /usr, it doesn't mean you should just let their rootfs fill up
10 with useless files.
11
12 Do you have any *real* argument? Because 'unnecessary hack' is
13 basically your feeling of ebuild aesthetics. My aesthetics is more
14 worried about useless clutter in /lib*. FHS agrees with me, as you
15 yourself admitted yesterday.
16
17 So why do you believe we should introduce this regression? And why are
18 you trying to sneak it past most of the developers via gentoo-portage-
19 dev instead of gentoo-dev?
20
21 --
22 Best regards,
23 Michał Górny

Attachments

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

Replies