On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 15:35 +0100, Rémi Cardona wrote:
Alexis Ballier a écrit :
Hi,
(I think pulseaudio is fixed, actually.)
For what it's worth: removing the .la files from pulseaudio breaks its
module loading on freebsd; and it's an elf system. I don't know what
you mean by
Le 16/11/2008 09:44, Michael Haubenwallner a écrit :
Never *unconditionally* switch back from libltdl to dlopenco in source
code, as it is likely to break many non-linux platforms (Darwin, AIX,
HP-UX, ...).
I perfectly know this. My comment was *exactly* made to point out that
we cannot fix
Le mercredi 12 novembre 2008 à 18:16 +0100, Peter Alfredsen a écrit :
[snip]
Mart had already proposed a static-lib USE flag. Donnie just
suggested on IRC we turn this use flag into a FEATURES flag.
That's problematic. You can't turn off a FEATURES flag for individual
packages. See above.
Hi,
(I think pulseaudio is fixed, actually.)
For what it's worth: removing the .la files from pulseaudio breaks its
module loading on freebsd; and it's an elf system. I don't know what
you mean by fixed and I didn't investigate this but restoring the .la
files in the ebuild allowed me to make
Alexis Ballier a écrit :
Hi,
(I think pulseaudio is fixed, actually.)
For what it's worth: removing the .la files from pulseaudio breaks its
module loading on freebsd; and it's an elf system. I don't know what
you mean by fixed
It's not fixed and it can't be. libtool's cross-platform
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:35:44 +0100
Gilles Dartiguelongue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le mercredi 12 novembre 2008 à 18:16 +0100, Peter Alfredsen a écrit :
[snip]
Mart had already proposed a static-lib USE flag. Donnie just
suggested on IRC we turn this use flag into a FEATURES flag.
On 15:25 Fri 14 Nov , Alexis Ballier wrote:
Moreover .la files are good when you want to link statically to some
library because they carry the needed information; they should be
punted only when said library provides a good alternative (like a .pc
file with correct libs.private field).
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:31:56 -0800
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15:25 Fri 14 Nov , Alexis Ballier wrote:
Moreover .la files are good when you want to link statically to some
library because they carry the needed information; they should be
punted only when said library
On P, 2008-11-09 at 18:34 +0200, Peter Alfredsen wrote:
On Sunday 09 November 2008, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 09-11-2008 18:04:05 +0200, Peter Alfredsen wrote:
+ # If this is a non-ELF system, chances are good that the .la
files will be needed. + if type -P scanelf /dev/null
I think
On Wednesday 12 November 2008, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
I heavily object to having any such function introduced or used or
equivalent .la removals conducted without a good rationale and
explanation of why this is the approach taken. I see no such
explanation anywhere, you are just blatantly
On 18:34 Sun 09 Nov , Peter Alfredsen wrote:
I've been told that .la files are really only needed on non-ELF
systems and with plugin systems that use dlopen.
And for people who want to build things statically.
--
Thanks,
Donnie
Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog:
Le 12/11/2008 15:40, Peter Alfredsen a écrit :
But let me point out that in most leaf-packages, removing la files will
cause no pain, but will ensure that they do not have to be rebuilt if
a .la-listed dependency loses its .la file.
Mart, others and myself have already tried removing .la files
On K, 2008-11-12 at 15:40 +0100, Peter Alfredsen wrote:
On Wednesday 12 November 2008, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
I heavily object to having any such function introduced or used or
equivalent .la removals conducted without a good rationale and
explanation of why this is the approach taken. I
On Wednesday 12 November 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 18:34 Sun 09 Nov , Peter Alfredsen wrote:
I've been told that .la files are really only needed on non-ELF
systems and with plugin systems that use dlopen.
And for people who want to build things statically.
That's true, but we
On Wednesday 12 November 2008, Rémi Cardona wrote:
Le 12/11/2008 15:40, Peter Alfredsen a écrit :
But let me point out that in most leaf-packages, removing la files
will cause no pain, but will ensure that they do not have to be
rebuilt if a .la-listed dependency loses its .la file.
Mart,
On Wednesday 12 November 2008, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
On K, 2008-11-12 at 15:40 +0100, Peter Alfredsen wrote:
It's a utility function. I've done all I can to ensure it'll be
used wisely. Whether it is used wisely is between you and ( $ROOT
or $666 ). But let me point out that in most
On 17:24 Wed 12 Nov , Peter Alfredsen wrote:
On Wednesday 12 November 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
And for people who want to build things statically.
That's true, but we generally don't want to do that, so that's fine.
If needed for a package, we just don't punt la files for it and
On 18:16 Wed 12 Nov , Peter Alfredsen wrote:
On Wednesday 12 November 2008, Rémi Cardona wrote:
Mart had already proposed a static-lib USE flag. Donnie just
suggested on IRC we turn this use flag into a FEATURES flag.
That's problematic. You can't turn off a FEATURES flag for
I attach here a proposed new function for eutils.eclass. Review
requested. Thanks to zlin and igli for initial review and suggestions
on #gentoo-dev-help.
--
/PA
--- /usr/portage/eclass/eutils.eclass 2008-09-28 07:06:15.0 +0200
+++ eutils1.eclass 2008-11-06 22:22:51.0 +0100
@@
On 09-11-2008 18:04:05 +0200, Peter Alfredsen wrote:
+ # If this is a non-ELF system, chances are good that the .la files will
be needed.
+ if type -P scanelf /dev/null
I think this is a not so cool way to check for an ELF system.
+ then
+ debug-print Scanelf
On Sunday 09 November 2008, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 09-11-2008 18:04:05 +0200, Peter Alfredsen wrote:
+ # If this is a non-ELF system, chances are good that the .la
files will be needed. + if type -P scanelf /dev/null
I think this is a not so cool way to check for an ELF system.
On 09-11-2008 18:34:31 +0200, Peter Alfredsen wrote:
On Sunday 09 November 2008, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 09-11-2008 18:04:05 +0200, Peter Alfredsen wrote:
+ # If this is a non-ELF system, chances are good that the .la
files will be needed. + if type -P scanelf /dev/null
I think
On 09-11-2008 19:46:12 +0200, Peter Alfredsen wrote:
Ok. What worries me though is that this would result in some systems
having libtool files whereas the majority does not. E.g. removing
them apparently fixes a problem that then crops up on those systems
or something. Can't think of
On Sunday 09 November 2008, Fabian Groffen wrote:
You could identify ELF a bit more reliable by running file on e.g.
${ROOT}/bin/bash, or just by building a list of CHOSTs that you
know are ELF systems.
D'oh, should have thought of that. See attached patch.
+ debug-print
24 matches
Mail list logo
