Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-16 Thread Michael Haubenwallner
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-16 Thread Rémi Cardona
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-14 Thread Gilles Dartiguelongue
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.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-14 Thread Alexis Ballier
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-14 Thread Rémi Cardona
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-14 Thread Marius Mauch
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.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-14 Thread Donnie Berkholz
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).

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-14 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-12 Thread Mart Raudsepp
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-12 Thread Peter Alfredsen
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-12 Thread Donnie Berkholz
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:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-12 Thread Rémi Cardona
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-12 Thread Mart Raudsepp
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-12 Thread Peter Alfredsen
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-12 Thread Peter Alfredsen
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,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-12 Thread Peter Alfredsen
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-12 Thread Donnie Berkholz
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-12 Thread Donnie Berkholz
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-09 Thread Fabian Groffen
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-09 Thread Peter Alfredsen
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.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-09 Thread Fabian Groffen
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-09 Thread Fabian Groffen
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

2008-11-09 Thread Peter Alfredsen
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