On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:41:36PM +0000, Matt Burgess wrote:
>
> Ah, good catch. I did look for the static libs but didn't see them
> immediately. Fixed in r9706. Incidentally, is there a similar trick
> for preventing those pesky libtool archives (.la) from being
> built/installed? Are they actually useful on a Linux box?
>
No, and "in theory, no". At one time my buildscripts had a
function to remove the libtool archives, because everyone said they
weren't needed on linux (and fedora used to remove them, generally).
But I stopped doing that, both because of broken packages (I think
mpeg123, and ImageMagick (for its delegates), and because of failed
updates (i.e. recompiling a patched package, or a newer version, to
fix a known vulnerability sometimes forced me to recompile
dependencies so that I could use the .la files.
At that time I was building on i686 (occasionally), x86_64, and
either, or both, ppc and ppc64. For i686 it might still be possible
to delete them, but I'v needed them on both x86_64 and ppc{,64} - not
always for the same packages. I thought about renaming them, the way
I do for static libs I can't get rid of but might, perhaps, need for
a later package, but in the end I decided that was a waste of effort.
BTW, I thought we (as in 'the book') were happy to let people have
static libraries, even though some of us loathe them on our own
machines ;-)
ĸen
--
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-book
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
