Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 16:59:34 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> Cc: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: howto stop port from installing .la files ? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0303011634080.738@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <1046535678.310.5.camel@gyros> References: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0302272130150.72813@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> <20030227223051.GA91669@rot13.obsecurity.org> <Pine.BSF.4.53.0303011335320.738@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> <200303011713.19351.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <1046535678.310.5.camel@gyros>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> > > > It's a policy that we shouldn't install .la files, because as far as
> > > > anyone knows they are useless on FreeBSD.
> > >
> > > I have far too few knowledge about this so would it be possible to
> > > explain a bit more or do your have a pointer where to find more
> > > information on this ("useless on FreeBSD") ?
> >
> > At least not in FreeBSD docs. Will explained it quite well in this thread why
> > they are NOT useless, you can read more on dlopen() and its
> > libltdl-counterparts lt_dlopen() and lt_dlopenext() in dlopen's manpage and
> > in libtool's documentation, which is available in several places on the net.
Reading about libtool is not the problem. Reading about WHY Kris said
it is useless on FreeBSD (be it true or not) was what I thought about.
Kris: can you please explain your first statement ? This for me makes
sense as portlint compains about \.la files in pkg-plist and advises
one to use USE_LIBTOOL which will then set
LIBTOOLFLAGS?= --disable-ltlibs
in Mk/bsd.port.mk which normally would prevent \.la files from being
installed if I got everything right.
Someone must have tought about all this so there must be at least
some truth behind it. Can (s)he comment on this ?
Or should it simply be the catchall for most of the ports that really
don't need it ?
So would correct statement be s.th. like: they are useless as long
as the port doesn't use lt_dlopen or lt_dlopenext ?
> In my porting, I have only found two instances where they are really
> needed. That was with guile and librep. In every other instance I do
> my best to remove them. I figure, if the application doesn't need them,
> why take up the space (little has it may be in the overall scheme of
> things)?
>
> My advice is to see if your port will work without them. If not,
> install them, and note why you're doing it.
Well trial and error is not the way I would like to work but want to
understand this.
Should s.th. like
find . -type f -name "*.c" -exec grep dlopen {} /dev/null \;
be a "solution" to show if they are (not) needed ?
--
Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT
56 69 73 69 74 http://www.zabbadoz.net/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.53.0303011634080.738>