On Jul 22, 2013, at 16:38, Joshua Root wrote: > On 2013-7-23 04:05 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >> On Jul 22, 2013, at 09:50, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: >> >>> If delete_la_files doesn't match the default value, built packages won't >>> match what we expect. >> >> I would think this would be a problem even if delete_la_files is the >> default, if we don't rebuild all packages on the packages server with 2.2 >> after its release (which Joshua previously said we should not do because it >> would be a waste of time). Don't you? > > No, why would it be?
I'm not sure. Would anything bad happen if: Scenario 1 a) user installs port foo built with MP 2.1 and thus non-empty dependency_libs in .la files b) user installs port bar (that depends on foo) with MP 2.2 and thus empty dependency_libs in .la files -> My understanding is this should work fine. Scenario 2 a) user installs port foo built with MP 2.2 and thus empty dependency_libs in .la files b) user installs port bar (that depends on foo) built with MP 2.1 and thus non-empty dependency_libs in .la files (e.g. from the packages server) -> Presumably the installation would work, since it's a binary -> Would the software work? -> What if the user now installs port baz that depends on bar and has to build from source? > I don't think you understand the changes in 2.2. I think I understand what was changed in MacPorts, but I have a much poorer understanding of .la files and libtool in general. >>> I think this was what caused https://trac.macports.org/ticket/39767 >> >> Do you believe the reporter had changed the value of delete_la_files? It >> wasn't mentioned in the report. > > Read the summary and description again. Oh. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
