From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 24 20:37:08 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 A3F9216A4CE for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:37:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from postman.arcor.de (postman2.arcor-online.net [151.189.0.152]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D6843D2D for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:37:08 -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)i2P4b6ko009428 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Thu, 25 Mar 2004 05:37:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from [172.16.0.2] (helo=fillmore-labs.com) by fillmore.dyndns.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1B6Mc4-0002fh-Jf; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 05:37:04 +0100 Message-ID: <406261F0.5010800@fillmore-labs.com> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 05:37:04 +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> <40624417.5040209@fillmore-labs.com> <200403250423.47441.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <200403250423.47441.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 04:37:08 -0000 Michael Nottebrock wrote: [...] >>So far I followed the former discussions, but I can't remember an example >>where something *really* uses the .la files. > > Yes, although I keep repeating it, nobody seems to ever remember: KDE _really_ > uses them, as it _really_ uses lt_dlopen(). Also third party KDE applications > will use them (if they happen to load modules or plugins - a simple > preferences dialog can be such a module for example), since they use kdelibs > which in turn use lt_dlopen(). Ehm, yes, but this is a case for modules or plugins, which should be easily coordinated (since they won't be loaded otherwise). > [...] > > However, I would already be totally happy if we could just add a paragraph to > the porter's handbook that says > > "If a port maintainer requests that your port SHOULD install libtool archives > because another port needs them, you shall comply with his request." > > To me, this seems like a workable and fair compromise and it would be a nice > thing to point to if anybody feels like beating the dead horse again. We > wouldn't even need to change portlint's warnings that way. Sound good? I think this is self-evident, but if you want to state it explicit that's fine with me. Maybe not in RFC-style, though ;) A comment in the Makefile or packing list, stating which ports are clients of the .la files may be a nice addition. -Oliver