Enrico Weigelt posted on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 22:09:30 +0200 as excerpted:
I'm doing some investigation on which .la files are still needed and
which are not. In general, .la files only are in use by very few
packages which use them to load plugins (I've seen no package which
actually requires
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 09:57:33PM +, Duncan wrote:
Enrico Weigelt posted on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 22:09:30 +0200 as excerpted:
I'm doing some investigation on which .la files are still needed and
which are not. In general, .la files only are in use by very few
packages which use them to
Hi folks,
why not just introducing an staticlib useflag:
when disabling this, all the static library stuff is kicked off.
For those libs where the static stuff is needed, just leave it
enabled. And packages which really depend on static libs could
check for the proper useflags.
cu
--
Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:18:19 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò) wrote:
libogg and popt are now masked, and they'll wait a bit before return
to ~arch that way.
2 months later, any news on this ? I've been using the unmasked
versions so long; are we going
On Thursday 19 June 2008 08:51:15 Luca Barbato wrote:
We could either pick a week and do a major ebuild update to remove .la
files when unnecessary or just append a notice about revdep rebuild.
How do you decide when they're unnecessary?
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
David Leverton wrote:
On Thursday 19 June 2008 08:51:15 Luca Barbato wrote:
We could either pick a week and do a major ebuild update to remove .la
files when unnecessary or just append a notice about revdep rebuild.
How do you decide when they're unnecessary?
.la are used for :
1 getting
On Thursday 19 June 2008 10:36:12 Luca Barbato wrote:
1 getting static libraries (pkg-config replaces this use)
Not for library consumers that use libtool but not pkgconfig.
2 load plugins using libtool support
Why only plugins? What's to stop an application from loading a normal
library
David Leverton wrote:
On Thursday 19 June 2008 10:36:12 Luca Barbato wrote:
1 getting static libraries (pkg-config replaces this use)
Not for library consumers that use libtool but not pkgconfig.
2 load plugins using libtool support
Why only plugins? What's to stop an application from
On Thursday 19 June 2008 11:39:44 Luca Barbato wrote:
Corner cases as usual...
What's that supposed to mean?
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
David Leverton a écrit :
Not for library consumers that use libtool but not pkgconfig.
I'd be in favor of having a _default_ configuration for Gentoo where
static binaries are never built except for some key packages (mainly for
rescue situations).
That way, in a dynamic-lib only system,
On Thursday 19 June 2008 13:08:09 Rémi Cardona wrote:
David Leverton a écrit :
Not for library consumers that use libtool but not pkgconfig.
I'd be in favor of having a _default_ configuration for Gentoo where
static binaries are never built except for some key packages (mainly for
rescue
On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 14:08 +0200, Rémi Cardona wrote:
Why only plugins? What's to stop an application from loading a normal
library using libtool's dlopen wrapper (perhaps so it can fail gracefully
if
the library is missing, for example)?
Nothing per se, but I have yet to see any
Am Donnerstag, 19. Juni 2008 16:22:19 schrieb Olivier Crête:
On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 14:08 +0200, Rémi Cardona wrote:
Why only plugins? What's to stop an application from loading a
normal library using libtool's dlopen wrapper (perhaps so it can fail
gracefully if the library is missing,
Olivier Crête a écrit :
FOSS is the keyword here... the flash plugin dlopens a bunch of stuff
While I haven't checked, I doubt that it uses libltdl to do so :)
also kde-3.5 is using libtools dlopen for plugins
Yep, but then again, it's for plugins. The real problem is with static
linking
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:20:10 +0100
David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's to stop an application from loading a normal library using
libtool's dlopen wrapper (perhaps so it can fail gracefully if the
library is missing, for example)?
That's a pretty basic definition of a plugin. :)
On Donnerstag, 19. Juni 2008, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:20:10 +0100
David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's to stop an application from loading a normal library using
libtool's dlopen wrapper (perhaps so it can fail gracefully if the
library is missing, for
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:18:19 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò) wrote:
libogg and popt are now masked, and they'll wait a bit before return
to ~arch that way.
2 months later, any news on this ? I've been using the unmasked
versions so long; are we going to wait forever ? It's
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò kirjoitti:
Probably the best thing would be to get a better tool than
revdep-rebuild to handle broken .la files, as revdep-rebuild forces a
timewasting rebuild, while a good fix could be just a sed -i -e
's:/usr/lib\(64\)\?/lib\(.*\).la:-l\2:' on all the .la files,
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You would have to fix the vdb too.
Which is the tricky part, and the reason why I didn't instruct anybody
to do the sed on my ChangeLogs.p
--
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
By the way, asking a question is not poisonous.
Absolutely. Asking about it here was my suggestion.
--
Best regards, Wulf
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Saturday 19 April 2008, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
By the way, asking a question is not poisonous.
Absolutely. Asking about it here was my suggestion.
his point was you should have asked him directly instead of starting a thread
on a mailing list to talk about him. doesnt seem terribly
On Saturday 19 April 2008, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
libogg and popt are now masked, and they'll wait a bit before return to
~arch that way.
please dont leave it like this. revbump both packages in question minus
the .la removal portion. libtool script scuttling is independent of
22 matches
Mail list logo
