On Wednesday 26 of May 2010 19:27:43 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Wednesday 26 May 2010 05:38:00 Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > > I've updated documentation, added example usage and option to keep > > libtool files (ltdl.so supposedly needs those as I was told, no idea > > what for). > > more applicable to us w/Linux is that static linking with libtool needs > them. the AUTOTOOLS_KEEP_LA_FILES seems kind of spurious considering > current tree behavior and assumption of gnu-capable linking systems.
It is spurious when we forget about run-time dynamic linking (plugins) in some apps. libtool loader (ltdl.so) needs .la files unfortunately. One example - imagemagick - removing .la files for coders makes 'convert' unable to locate them (silly, but hey...). Using autotools-utils for such packages would mean: - either not having static-libs in IUSE - barely acceptable - or having static-libs in IUSE but overriding all autotools-utils provided phases that make some actions depending on that USE flag - barely convenient (or not using this eclass, but like I said - I'd prefer it was able to obsolete all other autotools related eclasses - for ebuild API unification purpose - in such case it would be adopted by base-system@ most likely - hmm but then I'd need to add '<'EAPI-2 support, and it means src_unpack which I want to avoid) Since .la files aren't unfortunately exclusively related to static libs, I think it's better to have a simple option to keep .la files and be able to produce static libs in straightforward way even when this option for most cases would be simply redundant. -- regards MM
