On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 03:11:47PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > 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. >
That's an interesting thought - I recall (vaguely, it was a long time ago!) having problems on (probably) ppc or ppc64 when I rebuilt/upgraded something and perhaps that had a similar cause - nowadays I "hide" all .la files except those from ImageMagick and output_alsa/ (I think that is mpg123) during my end-of-package processing. It's always easier to "unhide" a file if something turns out to need it, and the wasted space is not significant. > 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 > That sounds like a useful rule of thumb - I'd been puzzled by the seds in the past because so many packages have that phrase in the logs. ĸen -- `I shall take my mountains', said Lu-Tze. `The climate will be good for them.' -- Small Gods -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
