Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02-10-2010 03:01, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 10:20 Sat 02 Oct , Alistair Bush wrote: >> How is this news item going to help ppl in a month from now (till the >> issue is solved in its entirety). Can we reasonably expect a new user >> to be aware of this. Do we expect users to read old ( and this could >> potentially become very old) news items. > > As soon as new stages get built with portage 2.1.9 (i.e., as soon as it > goes stable, as I understand the autobuild process), it should no longer > be a problem for fresh installations. You're correct. The weekly stages are built from the latest stable revisions of packages in the tree. - -- 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/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMpy6tAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEP20MQAJpCm+GfPvg/K2JEyXLvPkHu 7lRDM6rojOtH2nSxFW+WElGM0ly6CWj6xvm5vfPRD7dIisihrVPxDStOUI5hM3uV I1+IBecRyNlc7DPDBCOtMDbrzFpVlFTKM0p20eIIL5inimtfoVO6Iowps97KoW3M zmO0gTKdqWbBKmDzsAb/8seAWDNm0oKGURDL1gaYjQGUO3vckk7Ft2JBsQVg8Qy3 XLfjv9ft12TKUo/DFwowIf0IsFQooHWbrN77jDM9BjlzyTtrVFi3anZF5SdkLMYR I7VpKxhKEWaCJcyjyRZzo1QbvcvLAunPTbXZ2gwImisCzxp5gfRod3RwQpT8QGVb QlQeNo6PfaLlipA3EB17ZFVD5pU33YCGrbgLAOOe5a5bTWy1LK4NDdPmbW7cUL5d 9XpiADNlXP6gD1tDcqMHwo0zZa7F5YW/dwKGo/F3A296gD6l0zqIxp+AL6Rk7Awy W18YxFNPly6pFgktaJLicE1nPOKfbqvI7Dwcu534untfZUWSS1XQBCkRRW8Gtq+i jX41YWatE0cltKd7uBEyuc6fVAR3rAtHzpXHgNrh+04dVFrkJcUeJun+JiIAE1WU j+mN/NMD4ylqvzgQyS/YTMOBSVQW3EvFnq+p7H8OxHoH7XzQNSQkLsrAOBFcnPn6 3c6pxdEd9ZCzDi4y9fuj =hm// -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
On 10:20 Sat 02 Oct , Alistair Bush wrote: > Would it not be a better solution to have this information documented > "properly" under Upgrade Guides or Gentoo System Documentation and > then have this news item linked to it. This is a good point if it turns out that this isn't temporary. See below... > How is this news item going to help ppl in a month from now (till the > issue is solved in its entirety). Can we reasonably expect a new user > to be aware of this. Do we expect users to read old ( and this could > potentially become very old) news items. As soon as new stages get built with portage 2.1.9 (i.e., as soon as it goes stable, as I understand the autobuild process), it should no longer be a problem for fresh installations. It will of course remain a problem for people who wait forever to update their systems, but it will come in as a news item whenever they do update. It almost makes you wonder whether portage-2.1.9 should run lafilefixer itself in postinst, just to ensure everything's fixed on the system before it starts fixing individual new packages. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com pgpAinQyOQySc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
> Hi lads, > due to recent situation about .la files status we would like to inform > users about this situation. See attached file that we propose to be > included as news item. > Would it not be a better solution to have this information documented "properly" under Upgrade Guides or Gentoo System Documentation and then have this news item linked to it. What i'm concerned about is that this is not really a news item. From what I understand this issue could be with us for a rather long time (years even) so... How is this news item going to help ppl in a month from now (till the issue is solved in its entirety). Can we reasonably expect a new user to be aware of this. Do we expect users to read old ( and this could potentially become very old) news items. This is potentually a different situation from someone updating dbus (for example) from =y.y.y and having a once off (fire and forget) migration task. It is for this reason that I think this should be documented. Alistair. > Step 2 will be finding global policy how to get rid of them as fast as > possible without too much more hassle for our users :) > > > Tomáš Chvátal > Gentoo Linux Developer [Clustering/Council/KDE/QA/Sci/X11] > E-Mail : scarab...@gentoo.org > GnuPG FP: 94A4 5CCD 85D3 DE24 FE99 F924 1C1E 9CDE 0341 4587 > GnuPG ID: 03414587
Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 10/01/2010 08:13 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >> 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 FEATURES=buildpkg . > > It works if you run it on $D in post_src_install like the news item > recommends. The binary package is created from $D after that. > I'm talking about the first part which says the following: [quote] First of all, you should install lafilefixer and let it pass through the currently-installed system: # emerge lafilefixer # lafilefixer --justfixit [/quote] -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
On 10/01/2010 08:13 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > 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 FEATURES=buildpkg . It works if you run it on $D in post_src_install like the news item recommends. The binary package is created from $D after that. -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
2010/10/1 Tomáš Chvátal : > Hi lads, > due to recent situation about .la files status we would like to inform > users about this situation. See attached file that we propose to be > included as news item. > > Step 2 will be finding global policy how to get rid of them as fast as > possible without too much more hassle for our users :) > Does lafilefixer fix binpkgs now? As well as the vdb manifests for the files? If it doesn't, I strongly object to having it as an official recommendation. A surprisingly large no. of people (at least on bugzilla) have FEATURES=buildpkg . -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
В Птн, 01/10/2010 в 12:27 +0200, Tomáš Chvátal пишет:
> this can be done either by using the
> (currently testing) Portage 2.1.9 series, or by adding the following
> snippet to your /etc/portage/bashrc:
>
> post_src_install() {
> lafilefixer "${D}"
> }
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 reason.
--
Peter.
Re: [gentoo-dev] .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
On 10/1/10 12:27 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > Some of you might have noticed, others might notice, a few would > probably not notice at all Is this an appropriate language for a user-targeted announcement? Let's just say what we want to say, and don't try to be "funny". > First of all, you should install lafilefixer and let it pass through the > currently-installed system: > > # emerge lafilefixer > # lafilefixer --justfixit > > This will convert the references to libtool archives to the -llibname > form, which works both with and without them. Can we move this section closer to the beginning of the message, so that more impatient people will actually read it? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
Hi lads,
due to recent situation about .la files status we would like to inform
users about this situation. See attached file that we propose to be
included as news item.
Step 2 will be finding global policy how to get rid of them as fast as
possible without too much more hassle for our users :)
Tomáš Chvátal
Gentoo Linux Developer [Clustering/Council/KDE/QA/Sci/X11]
E-Mail : scarab...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP: 94A4 5CCD 85D3 DE24 FE99 F924 1C1E 9CDE 0341 4587
GnuPG ID: 03414587
Title: Removal of .la files
Author: Diego Elio Pettenò
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2010-10-01
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Some of you might have noticed, others might notice, a few would
probably not notice at all, that some Gentoo developers have started
removing the libtool archive files from packages that they maintain;
these changes have some times been applied to stable ebuilds as well,
but in all cases they won't be applied unless the package is re-emerged.
Removing .la files can cause, though, temporary disruption in the build
processes of libraries depending on those involved, because of the
transitive nature of .la files. For instance you could experiences
something like this:
libtool: link: `/usr/lib/libdbus-1.la' is not a valid libtool archive
with libdbus-1.la being replaced by other library names. If this is the
case, _do not panic_! Nothing is irremediably broken and nothing will
have to be rebuilt!
First of all, you should install lafilefixer and let it pass through the
currently-installed system:
# emerge lafilefixer
# lafilefixer --justfixit
This will convert the references to libtool archives to the -llibname
form, which works both with and without them.
Secondly, you can avoid any future requirement for this by sanitising
the newly installed .la files; this can be done either by using the
(currently testing) Portage 2.1.9 series, or by adding the following
snippet to your /etc/portage/bashrc:
post_src_install() {
lafilefixer "${D}"
}
It's a one time process that _will_ save you from more breakage and work
to do in the future, so please bear with us.
We'll be looking forward to make this more widely available knowledge
and we hope to be able to provide a better experience for all of you at
the end of this (bumpy) journey.
For more informations please see post [1] to gentoo-user mailing list
that contain more detailed description.
[1]
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/msg_b144a138af822433344f6064e2fa9c66.xml
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
