On Wednesday 12 November 2008, Rémi Cardona wrote: > Le 12/11/2008 15:40, Peter Alfredsen a écrit : > > But let me point out that in most leaf-packages, removing la files > > will cause no pain, but will ensure that they do not have to be > > rebuilt if a .la-listed dependency loses its .la file. > > Mart, others and myself have already tried removing .la files to "see > what would break". And it breaks a whole lot more than we > anticipated. > > Among others, it breaks KDE3 (all of it), pulseaudio, the current > version of app-office/dia, and many more which I can't remember.
That's known. So we just don't remove .la files from those. (I think pulseaudio is fixed, actually.) > In a perfect world, there would be no need for .la files. But we're > far from that perfect world. I think it's best we provide a better > solution. The problem is that in the world where we do live, .la files are needed some places and a pain in the ass other places, so blanket solutions will not work. > Mart had already proposed a "static-lib" USE flag. Donnie just > suggested on IRC we turn this use flag into a FEATURES flag. That's problematic. You can't turn off a FEATURES flag for individual packages. See above. > I think those are much better options than just using this function > in some ebuilds. I think it would make sense to have a static-libs USE flag and couple it with use of epunt_la_files where it's appropriate. FEATURES flag, no. The package maintainer decides which files get installed, noone else. With a FEATURES flag, we would break the whole tree and then need to fix it up with RESTRICT=no-static-libs for every individual ebuild where it fails. Tedious and not really worth our time. By selectively doing this, we can do it intelligently and over time, minimizing the inconvenience to users. -- /PA
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.