Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:39:21 -0500 From: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> To: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@FreeBSD.org>, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: To all port maintainers: libtool Message-ID: <53908119.5040505@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20140509001641.63310821@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> References: <20140508002420.5d37e7f6@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <20140508212756.00000df3@Leidinger.net> <20140509001641.63310821@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/8/14, 5:16 PM, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > On Thu, 8 May 2014 21:27:56 +0200 Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> On Thu, 8 May 2014 00:24:20 +0200 >> Tijl Coosemans <tijl@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >>> USES=libtool modifiers :keepla and :oldver. >> >> You wasn't explicit, which may be beneficial for people which don't >> have English as their first language... >> >> Is it right that you tell everyone to replace "USE_AUTOTOOLS=YES" with >> "USES=libtool:keepla:oldver" now? > > No, it is either USES=libtool, USES=libtool:keepla or USES=libtool:oldver. > Most ports will eventually use the first form but for the time being many > may have to use :keepla or :oldver. > > To know which one to use you can follow these steps: > > If a port does not install any libraries always use USES=libtool. If it > does, try USES=libtool:keepla. If this causes the major version number > of a library to change, use USES=libtool:oldver. > > You can upgrade USES=libtool:oldver to USES=libtool:keepla if > 1) an update to a new version of the port would have changed the > library version anyway, or > 2) you grep /usr/ports/INDEX-* for your port and find that only a > dozen or so other ports depend on it so bumping PORTREVISION on > them isn't that bad. > > You can upgrade USES=libtool:keepla to USES=libtool if you grep > /usr/ports/INDEX-* for your port and verify that all of the ports > that install .la files also have some form of USES=libtool in their > Makefile. Unless the number of dependent ports is small I don't > really recommend this. There's no harm in keeping .la files. > >> And for ports with a large dependency chain behind you more or less >> suggest to keep the modifiers until the ports tree is converted (let's >> assume a port which is needed by all desktop environments, then we are >> roughly speaking at about 3k ports or more which depend upon it, which >> is close enough to "the ports tree" for this discussion ;-) )? > > Yes. At some point ports with :oldver will be converted to :keepla. > Depending on how many ports these are, this will probably happen in > batches of related ports and may need to be coordinated by portmgr. > I don't expect this to be something that individual port maintainers > will have to worry about. > > And at another point the dependency records of all .la files will be > empty in all ports (currently about 1400 ports left). From then on > it will be safe to replace USES=libtool:keepla with USES=libtool. > I don't know what .la files are used for and have no time currently to research it. What is the impact to non-ports consumers of removing .la files? Do they also need patches to make them build? And if there is no impact, I am thoroughly confused on when to keep or not keep them. -- Regards, Bryan Drewery
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53908119.5040505>