From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 24 18:29:49 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A8F316A4CE for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:29:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from postman.arcor.de (postman2.arcor-online.net [151.189.0.152]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A991043D46 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:29:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com) Received: from fillmore.dyndns.org (port-212-202-51-138.reverse.qsc.de [212.202.51.138]) (authenticated bits=0)i2P2Tkko002095 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Thu, 25 Mar 2004 03:29:46 +0100 (MET) Received: from [172.16.0.2] (helo=fillmore-labs.com) by fillmore.dyndns.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1B6Kcp-0002VM-QA; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 03:29:43 +0100 Message-ID: <40624417.5040209@fillmore-labs.com> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 03:29:43 +0100 From: Oliver Eikemeier Organization: Fillmore Labs GmbH - http://www.fillmore-labs.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Nottebrock References: <200403240109.09430.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <200403240109.09430.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9 cc: Mark Linimon cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/libvanessa_adt Makefile pkg-plist ports/devel/libvanessa_adt/files patch-ltmain.sh X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:29:49 -0000 Michael Nottebrock wrote: > On Tuesday 23 March 2004 21:24, Mark Linimon wrote: > >>Although it has indeed been discussed to death, it has never made >>it into the Porter's Handbook. Since you are familiar with the >>rationale (I, personally, do not remember), could you possibly >>summarize the purpose that they serve so that I can write up a PR >>against the Handbook? > > lt_dlopen() from libltdl requires libtool-archives in order to work. There is > no consensus about the question if a working lt_dlopen is worth having > libtool archives installed by all ports which do provide them by default > (many do). Some people have suggested to fix libltdl to use FreeBSD's native > dlopen(), however, to my knowledge there have been no patches against libltdl > as of date and many projects include libltdl in their own sources if they're > using it. So far I followed the former discussions, but I can't remember an example where something *really* uses the .la files. Just `they might be used' is not really helpful. Take for example the OpenLDAP ports: I removed the .la files to adhere to FreeBSD conventions. Should I include them? Which would be the customers? > Also, it should be noted that the prime motivation to remove ".la files" are > the warnings from portlint (and sometimes complaints from users/committers > who do not know about libltdl). If those warnings were removed, there would > be no requirement to additionally document anything, IMHO. Hmmm... The libtools ports remove them, and most ports don't have them, to reduce clutter in lib/ a little. I guess documentation when and why these should be installed would be nice. Otherwise you have lots of ports where they would be needed, but aren't there, or ports where they are useless but are installed. Will this help the project? -Oliver