Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Douglas R. Reno wrote:
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.
The problem with .la files is that they need to be removed after many
(most?) installs in BLFS. I have found that having some .la files and
not others can lead to a failed build.
I don't think every package needs needs to have the "seems to be
moved" commented out, but some packages seem have about 2/3 of the
output consist with these bogus warnings. There I think the change is
warranted. So the answer to the question of whether these seds are
needed is that it depends on the package.
-- Bruce
Sounds fair to me. I'll go through my list later on and find the ones
that meet that qualification.
--
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
