05.06.2013 01:16, Samuli Suominen пишет: > On 05/06/13 00:09, Pacho Ramos wrote: >> It lacks a maintainer for a long time, also has some opened bugs and I >> am unsure if it's still needed. I am not using it for months and never >> saw any problem, also, portage fixes .la files by itself, and paludis >> people don't approve lafilefixer. >> >> Do we still need it? > > +1 for dropping it as... > > - gentoo-x86/ has been massively cleaned up with punting of .la files > - -Wl,--as-needed is enabled by default for ages > - portage's own .la file fixing > - emptying of some dependency_libs='' in tree > - the 'coming' GNU gold linker being even more stricter than > -Wl,--as-needed > - majority of `lafilefixer` users propably emerged it by accident, > thinking it's some magic bullet for their .la file problem, which it's not >
I have masked it. And by the way, i have discovered installed lafilefixer on one of my desktops(but not on servers), so yeah, probably i forgot to unmerge it a long time ago ;-) -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Qt project lead
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
