On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 09:57:33PM +0000, Duncan wrote: > Enrico Weigelt posted on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 22:09:30 +0200 as excerpted: > > > I'm doing some investigation on which .la files are still needed and > > which are not. In general, .la files only are in use by very few > > packages which use them to load plugins (I've seen no package which > > actually requires them for compile-time importing in production). > > FWIW, flameeyes has done quite a bit of work on this, but I'm not sure > it's published anywhere. > > FWIW2, I recently took the big jump myself, PKG_INSTALL_MASKing *.la files > (I run FEATURES=buildpkg so that's effectively install-masking them too, > but they don't get in the binpkgs at all that way), then rebuilding my > entire system, and while it's /possible/ certain plugins don't work, I've > not noticed it.
I use tommy's portage-multilib which doesn't install any .la files unless if ``shouldnotlink=true'' is found in the .la file. I think that the only sorts of problems we've encountered are similar to bug 300256 (caused by Gentoo splitting up a package into multiple ebuilds). > I needed only one exception, sys-devel/libtool itself. At least one > package (IIRC imagemagick but I could be recalling incorrectly) tests for > a properly configured libtool in the configure script by testing for > libtool's single *.la file, libltdl.la, so I had to rebuild/reinstall > libtool itself without that mask. This problem is found in an autoconf macro shipped with libtool itself: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libtool/2009-12/msg00023.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libtool/2010-02/msg00046.html Likewise, portage-multilib is configured by default to install .la files for the libtool package to work around this bug. -- binki Look out for missing apostrophes!
pgp7Pd7t5EKYh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
