On Sunday 09 November 2008, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 09-11-2008 18:04:05 +0200, Peter Alfredsen wrote: > > + # If this is a non-ELF system, chances are good that the .la > > files will be needed. + if type -P scanelf &> /dev/null > > I think this is a not so cool way to check for an ELF system.
Indeed, I think it's a horrid way. Please find a better one.
> > + then
> > + debug-print "Scanelf found, proceeding..."
> > + ebegin "Removing useless .la files"
> > + find "${TARGET}" -name '*.la' '(' -type l -o -type f ')' -exec
> > rm -f '{}' '+' + eend 0
> > + else
> > + debug-print "scanelf not found, this appears to be a non-ELF
> > system." + debug-print "non-ELF systems are likely to need .la
> > files." + debug-print ".la files not removed from ${TARGET}"
>
> rationale?
"I've been told" that .la files are really only needed on non-ELF
systems and with plugin systems that use dlopen. I actually have no way
of knowing that the .la files are needed on those arches, but I had
your archs in mind when doing the patch.
--
/PA
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
