From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Mar 1 9:43:25 2003 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 090D737B401 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 09:43:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from meitner.wh.uni-dortmund.de (meitner.wh.Uni-Dortmund.DE [129.217.129.133]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074A143F75 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 09:43:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from michaelnottebrock@gmx.net) Received: from lofi.dyndns.org ([10.3.12.105]) by meitner.wh.uni-dortmund.de (8.10.2/8.10.2/SuSE Linux 8.10.0-0.3) with ESMTP id h21Hh9c06695; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 18:43:09 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: meitner.wh.uni-dortmund.de: Host [10.3.12.105] claimed to be lofi.dyndns.org Received: from kiste.my.domain (kiste.my.domain [192.168.8.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by lofi.dyndns.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h21Hh2CG019702 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 1 Mar 2003 18:43:05 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from michaelnottebrock@gmx.net) From: Michael Nottebrock To: Joe Marcus Clarke Subject: Re: howto stop port from installing .la files ? Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 18:42:57 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" , Kris Kennaway , ports@freebsd.org References: <200303011759.35456.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <1046538354.310.18.camel@gyros> In-Reply-To: <1046538354.310.18.camel@gyros> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_mEPY+iK34ezsVE/"; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200303011843.02360.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --Boundary-02=_mEPY+iK34ezsVE/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline On Saturday 01 March 2003 18:05, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 11:59, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > > On Saturday 01 March 2003 17:36, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > > > On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 11:32, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > > > > On Saturday 01 March 2003 17:21, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 11:13, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > > > > > > > > > > My advice is to see if your port will work without them. If not, > > > > > install them, and note why you're doing it. > > > > > > > > That's not good advice, because you cannot know what _other_ > > > > applications might want to lt_dlopen(ext) the libraries your port > > > > installs. > > > > > > Like I said, in all my porting, I've only run across two instances > > > where this has been the case. It's very easy to go back and install > > > the .la files should they be needed later. However, this is a _very_ > > > rare thing. > > > > Well it's not at all rare for KDE apps, since they all use libltdl (if > > you ever wanna b0rk someone's KDE installation out of malice, sneak up = to > > his machine and do find / -name *.la -delete ;)). > > So do the KDE components roll their own ltdl and compile it in > statically? I only found five ports that actually depend on libltdl. Yes. It's part of libkdecore, which contains the generic KLibLoader class. > > The question remains what is to > > be gained by nuking the libtool archives. All the reasons people come up > > with (like "waste of disk space, CPU time and developer's time", quote > > sobomax) sound rather smug to me when you look at what that's actually > > about (~1k textfiles). > > I guess it's best left to the porter's preference and knowledge of the > application. I'm not going to go on a crusade to remove all .la files > from all ports. You don't, I don't, others do (or at least have done so in the past), which= is=20 why portlint is complaining and the porter's handbook contains that=20 misleading information in the first place (which isn't exactly wrong, just= =20 the conlusion "libtool archives -> useless" is wrong). > However, in the GNOME ports that I know don't need > those libraries, I'll not install them. Like I said, you can never really know, but of course there's nothing wrong= =20 about it as long as you'll add them as soon as another port maintainer will= =20 come and complain. ;) My advice to porters would be to continue using USE_LIBTOOL, but not bother= =20 removing the .la's, if USE_LIBTOOL doesn't take care of them, because they = do=20 not do harm (by any reasonable standards) and are not useless (which is=20 easily proven by existing applications, whatever their number, that break i= n=20 their absence). =2D-=20 Regards, Michael Nottebrock --Boundary-02=_mEPY+iK34ezsVE/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQA+YPEmXhc68WspdLARAuw8AJoD0bLqZB2udBIoiGpukM6ugfJNjwCfR+1u UwitKHN96pgPBMJ/LQXYNnE= =KWi1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_mEPY+iK34ezsVE/-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message