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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
