| 1 |
On 3/12/10, Damian <damian.only@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
>> Bummer. Are you sure your libarchive.la is not another orphan, just |
| 3 |
>> like liblzmadec.la was? |
| 4 |
> Indeed. libarchive.la is not owned by any package. Is this a symptom |
| 5 |
> of a bigger problem? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Probably not, unless running Gentoo is considered a big problem. :) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
You can read many things about the problems of dynamic vs static |
| 10 |
linking from, e.g., flameeyes' blog. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
>> Please check (if you are still interested in hunting down the cause). |
| 13 |
> Sure, and I really appreciate the gentoo community help. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Ah, I got the impression that you might have been satisfied with USE="-lzma". |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
>> You should probably only end up with that la file if you have |
| 18 |
>> USE="static-libs" for libarchive -- which (if I'm reading correctly |
| 19 |
>> the paludis output attached in the bug) you do not have currently |
| 20 |
>> enabled. |
| 21 |
> That's correct. Should I enable static-libs and recompile libarchive? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I don't think so, but I don't know what your system is for. If the box |
| 24 |
currently runs without the static libs then I'd guess you don't need |
| 25 |
them. I think you might want to hear a third opinion, if someone else |
| 26 |
has one to lend. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
>> But since you have the libarchive.la file on your system you may have |
| 29 |
>> had the USE flag enabled at one point, or the ebuild may have changed |
| 30 |
>> to allow separate dynamic and static building while your package |
| 31 |
>> manager might not have kept up with its records. |
| 32 |
> Ok, if that's the case I will report it to the paludis developers. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Given Neil's comment I think it might not be a bug, but rather a nasty |
| 35 |
"feature", apparently of portage as well (that was news to me). |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Arttu V. |
Archives