Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

2010-10-03 Thread Luca Barbato
On 10/02/2010 06:26 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: My opinions haven't changed one bit in the past week. I don't see how not breaking the stable tree can be called being overly conservative. you have a quite broad definition of breaking. - clean slate emerge works before and after. - adding a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

2010-10-03 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: On 10/02/2010 06:26 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: My opinions haven't changed one bit in the past week. I don't see how not breaking the stable tree can be called being overly conservative. you have a quite broad

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

2010-10-02 Thread Dale
Duncan wrote: Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 03:06:56 +0200 as excerpted: Il giorno sab, 02/10/2010 alle 00.42 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto: Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly get build failures again. And that confuses them

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

2010-10-02 Thread Peter Volkov
В Птн, 01/10/2010 в 20:02 +0200, Diego Elio Pettenò пишет: I, sincerely, have poured enough effort in trying to solve the issue, discussing it, documenting it, showing how to deal with new packages, showing how to identify pointless .la files that only increase the number of them installed and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

2010-10-02 Thread Peter Volkov
В Птн, 01/10/2010 в 12:38 -0700, Zac Medico пишет: Maybe advise them to use post_pkg_preinst instead of post_src_install, so it works even for binary packages. Is it possible for portage-2.1.8.x to depend on lafilefixer and add run lafilefixer (if installed) from base profile bashrc? --

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

2010-10-02 Thread Luca Barbato
On 10/01/2010 09:12 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: I don't think it makes much difference though to them — beside making you feel righteous at dragging your feet. Nice try. I'm sorry, but I do not understand your hostility. Could you rephrase your objections with what I said in a way I can

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

2010-10-02 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: On 10/01/2010 09:12 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: I don't think it makes much difference though to them —  beside making you feel righteous at dragging your feet. Nice try. I'm sorry, but I do not understand your

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

2010-10-02 Thread Zac Medico
On 10/02/2010 05:21 AM, Peter Volkov wrote: В Птн, 01/10/2010 в 12:38 -0700, Zac Medico пишет: Maybe advise them to use post_pkg_preinst instead of post_src_install, so it works even for binary packages. Is it possible for portage-2.1.8.x to depend on lafilefixer and add run lafilefixer (if

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

2010-10-02 Thread Peter Volkov
В Сбт, 02/10/2010 в 10:43 -0700, Zac Medico пишет: On 10/02/2010 05:21 AM, Peter Volkov wrote: Is it possible for portage-2.1.8.x to depend on lafilefixer and add run lafilefixer (if installed) from base profile bashrc? We can do a portage-2.1.8.4 version bump with support for running

[gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

2010-10-01 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 17.31 +0400, Peter Volkov ha scritto: It's better to avoid suggesting this as such things tend to stay for a very long time on user's systems and since this'll became redundant once portage 2.1.9 will go stable soon it'll la files will be fixed twice for no

[gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

2010-10-01 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 20.43 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto: Does lafilefixer fix binpkgs now? As well as the vdb manifests for the files? If it doesn't, I strongly object to having it as an official recommendation. A surprisingly large no. of people (at least on bugzilla) have

[gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

2010-10-01 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 18.42 +0300, Eray Aslan ha scritto: Why not push for stabilization of 2.1.9 and then do the news item? Am I missing something? Yah, the bickering of some people at having .la files disappear under their feet, probably because they are affectionate to them, or

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

2010-10-01 Thread Zac Medico
On 10/01/2010 12:12 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@gmail.com wrote: Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 20.43 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto: Does lafilefixer fix binpkgs now? As well as the vdb manifests for the files? If it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

2010-10-01 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote: On 10/01/2010 12:12 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly get build failures again. And that confuses them since it's unexpected. This is in general a bad

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

2010-10-01 Thread Zac Medico
On 10/01/2010 02:10 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote: On 10/01/2010 12:12 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly get build failures again. And that confuses them since

[gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

2010-10-01 Thread Duncan
Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 03:06:56 +0200 as excerpted: Il giorno sab, 02/10/2010 alle 00.42 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto: Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly get build failures again. And that confuses them since it's unexpected.