2017-10-29 1:48 GMT+09:00 Pierre Labastie <[email protected]>: > On 28/10/2017 17:24, DJ Lucas wrote: >> >> On October 28, 2017 10:08:53 AM CDT, "大橋 洋平" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Doesn't LFS advise removal of .la files nowadays? I seem to recall >>>>> something was documented. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately I do not think that works well. Every autotools >>> >>> package >>>> >>>> installs .la files and libtool insists on using them. It would be >>> >>> nice >>>> >>>> if libtool would just use pkgconfig. >>> >>> I've always deleted .la files and have no problems so far. Would you >>> tell me why don't you "think that works well"? >>> >>> >>> Y. Ohashi >>> -- >>> http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev >>> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html >>> Unsubscribe: See the above information page >> >> The difference is that it must be done after each package is installed, >> making it somewhat error prone. Once another libtool based package uses a >> previous one, the linker is forever dependent on it and the dependency chain >> just gets longer and longer. Making it more difficult to correct. > > > So is it OK to use the command we give in "Notes on Building Software"? > Or will I break my system if I do? > Here is the command: > ------------- > > find /lib /usr/lib -not -path "*Image*" -a -name \*.la -delete > -------------
I use a command (roughly) equivalent to that. > IIUC, I should at least remove *gst* paths and libltdl.la from the list > of deleted packages in addition to *Image*, but I am not sure. I checked my system. All .la files in *gst* and libltdl.la were removed, but my system works fine. Please don't take the definition of "works fine" seriously, though. Y. Ohashi -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
