On 10/23/2011 05:01 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> 2011/10/23 Samuli Suominen <ssuomi...@gentoo.org>:
>> On 10/23/2011 04:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuomi...@gentoo.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2011 03:00 PM, Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) wrote:
>>>>> scarabeus 11/10/23 12:00:55
>>>>>
>>>>> Modified: ChangeLog cdparanoia-3.10.2-r3.ebuild
>>>>> Log:
>>>>> Bump to eapi4 and punt static libs.
>>>>
>>>> Time to revert this commit as I don't see anything in the ebuild that
>>>> disables building the static archives at compile phase.
>>>>
>>>> This is same as hiding the problem, not solving it. Not the way we do
>>>> things at sound@.
>>>>
>>>>> + use static-libs || find "${ED}" -name '*.a' -exec rm -f {} +
>>>
>>> Doesn't reverting this seem a bit like shooting yourself in the foot
>>> to remove an ingrown toenail?
>>>
>>> Unless I'm missing something this DOES get rid of the unneeded
>>> archives. Now, sure, you'd save a few milliseconds of CPU if they
>>> weren't built in the first place. However, you're proposing replacing
>>> an ebuild that builds but doesn't install undesired files with one
>>> that builds them AND installs them (since the hypothetical ebuild that
>>> does neither doesn't exist yet).
>>>
>>> Perfection shouldn't hold us back from improvement. By all means open
>>> up a bug asking for the next level of improvement if it really bothers
>>> people.
>>>
>>> Now, if there is some subtle issue that causes issues during build if
>>> the files are there and only removed at the last minute then clearly
>>> that is a bigger problem.
>>
>> If you only wanted to remove these files, you are free to use
>> INSTALL_MASK locally instead of downgrading the quality of tree.
>>
>> Do you have any idea how much time me, and aballier spent to make
>> cdparanoia's build system as clean as it is now? And then to coordinate
>> them with upstream xiph.org?
>> Then I see this... Not acceptable by any standards.
>>
>>
>
> So you would rather see me patch the makefile to drop the slib targets
> conditionaly or alter whole src_compile to not run all but just lib on
> the required options?
> Both will take more space in the ebuild....
Setting make targets in src_compile sounds fine for this package. And
altering the build system to allow that if it already doesn't.
> Or should I actually make the build system correct and rewrite it into
> automake to use libtool?
Considering how hard it has been to make xiph.org accept patches, this
would propably be waste of time.
> Anyway for they yajl i tried to submit patches for the build system
> once and upstream is not interested so this is clear solution to solve
> the issue without me having to patch half of the CMakeLists.txt.
>
USE=static-libs is about preventing the building of static archives, not
only about installing them, so if you don't want to patch the build
system for whatever reason, just leave it be.
