Armin K. wrote:
On 23.07.2016 20:59, Douglas R. Reno wrote:
Armin K. wrote:
On 21.07.2016 23:59, via blfs-book wrote:
Author: renodr
Date: Thu Jul 21 14:59:16 2016
New Revision: 17603
Log:
Added seds to subversion, libva, and libX11 to silence more libtool warnings
Typo fixes
Are you really going to add this to every package, just because it's anoying?
Not to *every* package. Most of them that I have run across don't complain
whatsoever. I would say 75% of packages I have built haven't complained. That
said, 15% have complained, and 10% don't use Libtool whatsoever.
If you want to get rid of it, use a more elegant solution:
Remove /usr/lib64 symlink when starting lfs build. Make sure nothing gets
installed
there by using apropriate switches to point to /usr/lib. I think I've ironed
out all
the cases that I've found when I was around, or
Remove all *.la files in /usr/lib (but not its subdirectories). They are
useless anyways.
If we weren't in the second half of the last month before release, I'd consider
suggesting that. That would require a bit more testing than I can muster at the
moment. Wouldn't that violate the FHS as well?
No sane distro ships *.la files in /usr/lib, and most of them respect FHS. So
no, it wouldn't.
I am specifically talking about the /lib64 and /usr/lib64 symlinks.
Those are required by the FHS, if I am not mistaken. I am not opposed to
removing the *.la files, but where would we tell users to do that? The
issue with these warnings is that they detract from useful build output
altogether. We already know that many users don't read the introductory
chapters and jump straight into the build instructions.
--
Douglas R. Reno
--LFS/BLFS systemd maintainer
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
