Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files and their future on Gentoo
Le 04/10/2010 08:35, Michał Górny a écrit : On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 00:00:22 +0200 Rémi Cardona r...@gentoo.org wrote: #2a) pkg-config is one solution (what upstream Xorg says: if you want a static libX11, use pkg-config --static), other teams/herds could fix their packages' .pc files to correctly list all required packages for proper static linking. It's not rocket science. AFAIK more .pc files rather need fixing to list only direct dependencies when '--static' is not used. pkg-config itself takes care of the dependencies pretty well. Right, either way, .pc files usually need a little tweaking as devs rarely touch them unless something is really broken. Patching (in accordance with upstream of course) may be required. But it's definitely my preferred solution (and a cross-platform one at that!) Cheers, Rémi
Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files and their future on Gentoo
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 00:00:22 +0200 Rémi Cardona r...@gentoo.org wrote: #2a) pkg-config is one solution (what upstream Xorg says: if you want a static libX11, use pkg-config --static), other teams/herds could fix their packages' .pc files to correctly list all required packages for proper static linking. It's not rocket science. AFAIK more .pc files rather need fixing to list only direct dependencies when '--static' is not used. pkg-config itself takes care of the dependencies pretty well. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files and their future on Gentoo
On 2 October 2010 20:54, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote: Given the recent activity around .la files and conflict about how to deal with them, I propose we discuss this issue in this mailing list, and take this issue to the council. That way, we can make a global decision, taking into account all the arguments for and against, find a balance, opt for a policy, inform users and developers about it and move on. While I do agree that the underlying problem we're trying to solve is worth solving, I do have a couple of small concerns about how it's being done. The first is that it seems people are judging whether a particular .la file is needed by checking whether anything currently in the tree needs it, but this doesn't take into account anything that /isn't/ in the tree yet. The second is that removing .la files everywhere makes it hard for people to experiment with alternative solutions, as testing an alternative would require modifying all the affected ebuilds to stop removing them. (And yes, I am interested in doing so myself, although time constraints mean it might not happening.) Would it be too much trouble to have a standardised variable that means .la files should be kept? It maybe /shouldn't/ be exposed as a USE flag because very few people will need it, but if it's easy to implement (maybe by having an eutils function to do the removal, checking the variable first) it would remove any objections I could imagine. As I said, these are minor points, and I wouldn't expect people to go to great effort to satisfy them. Just something to consider.
Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files and their future on Gentoo
On 10/03/2010 07:53 AM, David Leverton wrote: Would it be too much trouble to have a standardised variable that means .la files should be kept? It maybe /shouldn't/ be exposed as a USE flag because very few people will need it, but if it's easy to implement (maybe by having an eutils function to do the removal, checking the variable first) it would remove any objections I could imagine. Such a solution would also have the virtue of allowing the use of USE dependencies. So, you would only install the .la files from a particular library if another package actually needed them. Packages could also have USE defaults as seems logical to their maintainers and distro policy. Where this would get complex is if we want more than all-or-nothing resolution. The simplest USE approach would be to have it toggle all the .la files in the package. However, if you have 5 files that are essential, and 5 that are likely nothing but trouble it will be harder to manage that while still allowing full control. I guess careful use of local flags might work, in combination with some sane policy. I'm not sure if this is a use case that is even worth worrying about... Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files and their future on Gentoo
On 3 October 2010 14:20, Richard Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: Such a solution would also have the virtue of allowing the use of USE dependencies. So, you would only install the .la files from a particular library if another package actually needed them. Packages could also have USE defaults as seems logical to their maintainers and distro policy. That's a good point - I did suggest not putting it in USE to avoid cluttering things up for the sake of a use case that most people won't need, but being able to do USE deps would be nice. Maybe a USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN variable could be a compromise, but that itself could be confusing when a package wants to enable a flag that doesn't appear to exist. It probably depends on how often such a dep would actually be needed - I suspect not very often. Where this would get complex is if we want more than all-or-nothing resolution. The simplest USE approach would be to have it toggle all the .la files in the package. However, if you have 5 files that are essential, and 5 that are likely nothing but trouble it will be harder to manage that while still allowing full control. I guess careful use of local flags might work, in combination with some sane policy. I'm not sure if this is a use case that is even worth worrying about... I think that's unlikely to be a problem, but yes, local flags or the like could be used if it ever does come up.
Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files and their future on Gentoo
On 10/03/2010 01:53 PM, David Leverton wrote: While I do agree that the underlying problem we're trying to solve is worth solving, I do have a couple of small concerns about how it's being done. The first is that it seems people are judging whether a particular .la file is needed by checking whether anything currently in the tree needs it, but this doesn't take into account anything that /isn't/ in the tree yet. I think the simpler solution is that if it needs .la, before reaching the tree it has to be fixed... lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files and their future on Gentoo
On 3 October 2010 15:29, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: I think the simpler solution is that if it needs .la, before reaching the tree it has to be fixed... What I'm not keen about that is that using the .la files isn't really broken - if libfoo uses libtool, and some other software uses libfoo's .la files in a way that works with the upstream version of libfoo, then it ought to work with Gentoo's libfoo too. (This gets into arguments about what sorts of changes are appropriate for a distribution to make, versus being left to upstream.) Also, not every piece of software that people might want to use is going to go into the main tree - people can use Gentoo to develop their own software (and might have their own ideas (or their company/project's ideas) about what parts of libtool it's appropriate to rely on), use packages from overlays, compile other people's software outside the package management system, run precompiled binaries, etc. Again, from here I'm sure you can have a big discussion about whether libraries in the tree exist only to support applications in the tree, or whether they're products (for want of a better word) in their own right. Again, maybe not earth-shatteringly important issues, but I do think these should at least be considered when deciding the policy.
Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files and their future on Gentoo
On 03-10-2010 12:53, David Leverton wrote: On 2 October 2010 20:54, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote: Given the recent activity around .la files and conflict about how to deal with them, I propose we discuss this issue in this mailing list, and take this issue to the council. That way, we can make a global decision, taking into account all the arguments for and against, find a balance, opt for a policy, inform users and developers about it and move on. While I do agree that the underlying problem we're trying to solve is worth solving, I do have a couple of small concerns about how it's being done. The first is that it seems people are judging whether a particular .la file is needed by checking whether anything currently in the tree needs it, but this doesn't take into account anything that /isn't/ in the tree yet. This is a very good point. However, in the case of out-of-tree packages, I think most regular users just use ebuilds from bugzilla (and third party places like forums etc). Users that contribute their cooked ebuilds should know more or less what are doing, so I guess they will have the corresponding packages patched in one way or another, if they require a certain .la file. The second is that removing .la files everywhere makes it hard for people to experiment with alternative solutions, as testing an alternative would require modifying all the affected ebuilds to stop removing them. (And yes, I am interested in doing so myself, although time constraints mean it might not happening.) Would it be too much trouble to have a standardised variable that means .la files should be kept? It maybe /shouldn't/ be exposed as a USE flag because very few people will need it, but if it's easy to implement (maybe by having an eutils function to do the removal, checking the variable first) it would remove any objections I could imagine. This seems like a very good solution. For example - usually, people building packages manually just want the build process to work. They don't want to spend time making an ebuild or digging around. One being able to simply USE=libtool emerge foo to restore the foo's .la files would be great. A gentoo page properly indexed in Google and explaining what to do when a libtool library is not found, should take care of most. Another positive point about an .la USE flag is that users are already used to put their USE flags on bugzilla, which should help package maintainers to acknowledge .la related problems. As I said, these are minor points, and I wouldn't expect people to go to great effort to satisfy them. Just something to consider. Me being one of the persons that initially contributed code to allow portage to fix .la files, I'm indeed happy to see the direction Gentoo is heading. Libtool archives were (and still are for those not using portage) a pain in the ass for cross-compilation. Regards, - Angelo
Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files and their future on Gentoo
On 03-10-2010 15:29, Luca Barbato wrote: On 10/03/2010 01:53 PM, David Leverton wrote: While I do agree that the underlying problem we're trying to solve is worth solving, I do have a couple of small concerns about how it's being done. The first is that it seems people are judging whether a particular .la file is needed by checking whether anything currently in the tree needs it, but this doesn't take into account anything that /isn't/ in the tree yet. I think the simpler solution is that if it needs .la, before reaching the tree it has to be fixed... joke Was libtool deprecated or something? Judging by your reply, it really made me think so. /joke The farther we walk from upstream, the greater is the quantity of work we have to do to maintain their packages. lu
Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files and their future on Gentoo
Le 03/10/2010 16:29, Luca Barbato a écrit : I think the simpler solution is that if it needs .la, before reaching the tree it has to be fixed... Using libltdl (libtool's dlopen wrapper) is a *legitimate* use of .la files. Those programs do not need to be fixed as they are not broken. The discussion here is about random apps and libs, that install .la files for no other reason that they were *built* using libtool. Such programs will work just fine without .la files. The only risk is breaking : 1) building other packages (see the dbus bug) 2) building *static* programs/libs #1 can be fixed using lafilefixer which sanitizes .la files so that they stop referencing other .la files. #2 is harder : #2a) pkg-config is one solution (what upstream Xorg says: if you want a static libX11, use pkg-config --static), other teams/herds could fix their packages' .pc files to correctly list all required packages for proper static linking. It's not rocket science. #2b) drop support for static linking altogether. It can make sense for some packages, but definitely isn't suitable for the entire portage tree. So again, these are the only 2 issues we should be addressing. Cheers, Rémi
Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files and their future on Gentoo
On 10/04/2010 12:00 AM, Rémi Cardona wrote: Using libltdl (libtool's dlopen wrapper) is a*legitimate* use of .la files. Those programs do not need to be fixed as they are not broken. To my knowledge ltdl would load just fine the .so if the .la isn't found. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files and their future on Gentoo
On 10/03/2010 06:57 PM, Angelo Arrifano wrote: joke Was libtool deprecated or something? Judging by your reply, it really made me think so. /joke joke once everybody moves to scons/ffconf/whatever sure /joke The farther we walk from upstream, the greater is the quantity of work we have to do to maintain their packages. Well I consider the .la sort of legacy byproduct of libtool and not something useful, probably in the future I'll send a patch to have the .la put as last item in search order for both libtool and libltdl to make it a non issue for everybody =P lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
[gentoo-dev] .la files and their future on Gentoo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello. Given the recent activity around .la files and conflict about how to deal with them, I propose we discuss this issue in this mailing list, and take this issue to the council. That way, we can make a global decision, taking into account all the arguments for and against, find a balance, opt for a policy, inform users and developers about it and move on. With that goal in mind, I'd like to ask anyone with arguments about this issue to present them as a reply to this thread. I'll present some arguments and some of the issues being raised on a latter mail. - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMp438AAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPGzkQAMGg9x20PtHZ3KOlWwMwBf68 /mPUjmHYMFJmh/TVJniBdF7GWB4U+2pFmRYrbGixfglmSNtT6aohycFmvcZdrGmY GUZUbZnl4FvXnVp+XAYxu21Zzy/+NxwDiZchBXXjL6lLAWUnPiP0nEwNkB5yTOZS IPirLQ9wIqT2tb1KS1JNvas858qHAFJUt8yDd5Iv58rqDyPsLHrhJM8fdohMn3R0 8+aV9U4M3OpXpS0F53heJr3dYQB9Onw8HwUmQ1dcxfBtda7V29kQC24Eyr62LVcP Ajpjp0DroYOUTSaz2tOkReILDPOr3XFxCFdNYKtq9wh+Pq2fqdi0hZl/cfgTWFGW 0938sE/HA5rqnyHiSqqpYndywrH8YCUMovwti5/NSOSrGzaC7Jia5QpTpWZi8KJ4 FP7vtdG7BdKGEb2mQiDOQ7AHP6J8qWa6adpMAShjDndLwqftuRi9eRWL5WqVFqq3 25RgTCaRXPrzJYdJ35pirjK7ZrXx4M8KQ3Jd4Ljq7FTCB11V8J35itrC9hTKdLSI 3U8LrwDju9U1KixBvAdsxjHfolSjmaKGj+t1dcBocVjHFD2dBPSZf5JVwnNgNTcu r8G5799k6VFkWIdOoIylg8HUuHs5SlmSn9EZmiaSP/atwEAQDzhy1Nbj7b0qnPRY pbbu82EiSwyZHwpDRcpS =MFGl -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files and their future on Gentoo
Le 02/10/2010 21:54, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto a écrit : With that goal in mind, I'd like to ask anyone with arguments about this issue to present them as a reply to this thread. [putting on my X11 cap] As far as X11 packages are concerned (libX11, libXext, cairo, etc), we can remove .la files now since upstream only supports linking through pkg-config (static linking included). So X11 can remove them any time, I was just waiting for a flag-day to do it. Cheers, Rémi
