[gentoo-dev] Removing .la files
Hi folks, 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 them for compile-time importing in production). For net-im/pidgin (and its various plugins) I can now confirm that .la files are not needed here, so we could remove them here. I'll check more packages on that. BTW: is there a way to teach revdep-rebuild to ignore .la files ? cu -- -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weig...@metux.de mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 -- Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme --
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing .la files...
So we are now a year later, some people are getting excited at getting rid of .la files again but no decent solution has been presented yet that I am aware of. We've had two situations recently: * https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=264249 which got reverted * https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=266016 which author of the change don't want to revert My questions are simple: * do we have a plan ? I mean something real, not people doing stuff in their territory or lonewolves. * do we want to *harm* our users base by changing this starting from low level libs ? ok maybe that's rhetoric questions but I can't help it. -- Gilles Dartiguelongue e...@gentoo.org Gentoo signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing .la files...
On Monday 13 April 2009 17:17:36 Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: So we are now a year later, some people are getting excited at getting rid of .la files again but no decent solution has been presented yet that I am aware of. We've had two situations recently: * https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=264249 which got reverted * https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=266016 which author of the change don't want to revert My questions are simple: * do we have a plan ? I mean something real, not people doing stuff in their territory or lonewolves. * do we want to *harm* our users base by changing this starting from low level libs ? it either moves ahead sanely, or it doesnt move ahead at all. Bug 266016 is an example of doing it wrong for no real benefit whatsoever. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Removing .la files...
Hello! I think flameeyes should have sent this himself in the first place, but since he's clearly not going to do that and prefers to just force it on our users I'm mailing this... flameeyes talked about .la files in his blog recently: http://blog.flameeyes.eu/articles/2008/04/14/what-about-those-la-files Now he decided that simply removing them for several packages, resulting in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218286 and its dupes. This is annoying for quite a few users as they will have to rebuild lots of stuff for KDE, Gnome and other packages and I'm not sure if this is really the way we want to fix --as-needed failures. Furthermore, such things should not be decided and pushed through unilaterally but be agreed upon here prior to doing this change. Especially since even though removing .la files might make sense (with exceptions, of course) we should think about either doing it distribution-wide or not at all. -- Best regards, Wulf signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing .la files...
Wulf C. Krueger wrote: Hello! I think flameeyes should have sent this himself in the first place, but since he's clearly not going to do that and prefers to just force it on our users I'm mailing this... Have we not learn't! I hardly think that revdep-rebuild is an obvious solution to this issue. So now we have doomed our users ( and some of our dev's ) to having to search for a solution. I note that within the ebuild there isn't even a elog explaining what to do. If we are going to make changes like this we need to provide an effective news service. I'm sure this was one of the issues that arose during the hot house months. I actually find this incident rather depressing. especially after we (seem to) have done so well with the baselayout/openrc migration. ( I do realise that one is significantly bigger than the other and therefore requires a bigger fan fair ). flameeyes talked about .la files in his blog recently: http://blog.flameeyes.eu/articles/2008/04/14/what-about-those-la-files Im sure everyone will find that Now he decided that simply removing them for several packages, resulting in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218286 and its dupes. What a surprise. never could have guessed. This is annoying for quite a few users as they will have to rebuild lots of stuff for KDE, Gnome and other packages and I'm not sure if this is really the way we want to fix --as-needed failures. ++. We sure do like to annoy our users. Furthermore, such things should not be decided and pushed through unilaterally but be agreed upon here prior to doing this change. ++. I actually have no problem with agreeing with it, currently my problem is the complete and utter lack of any _planned_ upgrade path. What do we think users are going to be saying at the end of the year when after every sync they have to revdep-rebuild. Maybe, if we proceed with this, we investigate what can have its la files removed and do it all in one go. therefore ppl won't have to rebuild kde/gnome ( or any other large and time consuming package) over and over and over and over and over and over ... again. Hell it would even be better to batch a few conversions so that each revdep-rebuild fixes multiple breakages in one. Especially since even though removing .la files might make sense (with exceptions, of course) we should think about either doing it distribution-wide or not at all. ++ -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing .la files...
Wulf C. Krueger wrote: Hello! I think flameeyes should have sent this himself in the first place, but since he's clearly not going to do that and prefers to just force it on our users I'm mailing this... flameeyes talked about .la files in his blog recently: http://blog.flameeyes.eu/articles/2008/04/14/what-about-those-la-files Now he decided that simply removing them for several packages, resulting in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218286 and its dupes. This is annoying for quite a few users as they will have to rebuild lots of stuff for KDE, Gnome and other packages and I'm not sure if this is really the way we want to fix --as-needed failures. That or just remove the other .la. Furthermore, such things should not be decided and pushed through unilaterally but be agreed upon here prior to doing this change. Agreed, even if it is relatively low profile IMHO. Especially since even though removing .la files might make sense (with exceptions, of course) we should think about either doing it distribution-wide or not at all. I'll put as item for the council meeting if we don't reach consensus before. In the other news I advise to start asking library upstreams to provide pkgconfig files (and/or push patches providing that). lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing .la files...
Alistair Bush wrote: ++. I actually have no problem with agreeing with it, currently my problem is the complete and utter lack of any _planned_ upgrade path. What do we think users are going to be saying at the end of the year when after every sync they have to revdep-rebuild. Maybe, if we proceed with this, we investigate what can have its la files removed and do it all in one go. therefore ppl won't have to rebuild kde/gnome ( or any other large and time consuming package) over and over and over and over and over and over ... again. Hell it would even be better to batch a few conversions so that each revdep-rebuild fixes multiple breakages in one. Call that an experiment, do not start screaming but just try to help a bit. I think we could have those change masked now and unmasked once we got something sorted better. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing .la files...
Luca Barbato kirjoitti: Alistair Bush wrote: ++. I actually have no problem with agreeing with it, currently my problem is the complete and utter lack of any _planned_ upgrade path. What do we think users are going to be saying at the end of the year when after every sync they have to revdep-rebuild. Maybe, if we proceed with this, we investigate what can have its la files removed and do it all in one go. therefore ppl won't have to rebuild kde/gnome ( or any other large and time consuming package) over and over and over and over and over and over ... again. Hell it would even be better to batch a few conversions so that each revdep-rebuild fixes multiple breakages in one. Call that an experiment, do not start screaming but just try to help a bit. I think we could have those change masked now and unmasked once we got something sorted better. lu And remember folks that if you don't want to deal with regular breaks, you should not be using ~arch. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing .la files...
On Saturday 19 April 2008, Wulf C. Krueger wrote: Furthermore, such things should not be decided and pushed through unilaterally but be agreed upon here prior to doing this change. Especially since even though removing .la files might make sense (with exceptions, of course) we should think about either doing it distribution-wide or not at all. except that this wont work. the only workable solution is for libraries to opt-in after having been reviewed to make sure they truly are not needed. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
