On 2016-08-03 04:18, Marco Atzeri wrote:
On 03/08/2016 10:00, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Aug 2 22:09, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
Any objections?
User confusion about incomplete packages?
That is my concern, although we are generally dealing with -devel
packages here. AFAICS the only way to work around that is to make the
script much more complicated (and hence slower).
What I wonder is, if cygport builds don't create/install .la files
anymore, don't we end up without them at one point anyway? Isn't it
sufficient if they go away over time?
The problem with that approach is that it would have to be done in a
top-down order, otherwise builds of other packages would break. For
example, libFLAC.la (from flac-devel) requires libogg.la (from
libogg-devel). If libogg.la is removed by rebuilding libogg with a new
cygport but libFLAC.la is not, then any libtool-based packages which
link with -lFLAC will fail because of the missing libogg.la mentioned
therein. Hence, the only way not to break things once they're there is
to either remove them from the top-down (mass rebuild), or all at once
(a perpetual postinstall).
Please note we have still some *.la files on x86_64
for other reasons and we can not run an indiscriminate prune
on x86.
I know. :-) The modules that are kept on x86_64 would be left alone by
the script.
--
Yaakov
