Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:02:57 -0400 From: Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> To: Michael Nottebrock <lofi@freebsd.org> Cc: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net>, Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Subject: Re: NOT installing the .la files Message-ID: <200606161102.58509@aldan> In-Reply-To: <200606160816.44477.lofi@freebsd.org> References: <200606112110.39148@aldan> <200606141616.21658.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <200606160816.44477.lofi@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 16 June 2006 02:16, Michael Nottebrock wrote: = > Unless there is a convincing example of things breaking without an .la = > file, these should be deleted. = = You know it doesn't work that way around. Prove that it's safe, before you = go ahead and potentially break everyone's installations out there. The consensus *was* that the .la files aren't needed. Either I missed the discussion on their restoration on ports@ (PRs don't count), or the burden of proof, that they are neccessary is on *you* :-) = There's convincing evidence it's not - after all, the old libtool *was* = patched in order to support this (and still never quite did for everything, = I and kde@ should know), while the current one is not. I am not "breaking everyone's installation out there". I'm simply advocating, that ports should not install their .la files -- as things used to be. The only argument against it so far was that maintaining a local hack in libtool for was too difficult for the libtool maintainers (not that they would allow anyone else into their fiefdom to maintain it, though). Fine, a port can simply delete its own .la files in post-install. NOW the second argument is offered: that the .la files are actually needed -- I don't see, where that is. You are saying, that's _going to happen_ because we are "in transition". Well, that seems like a transition for the worse, and I consider ports, that require .la files to be broken... The lt_dlopen, et. al are ugly hacks intended for poorly maintained legacy operating systems. FreeBSD does not need them and any software _ported_ to it should be patched to use the standard interfaces and APIs. Somewhere somehow minizing a porter's headache (however important) became of higher priority over the cleanliness of the port and even of the performance of the built software. We really ought to stop this trend... -mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200606161102.58509>