On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 09:57:33PM +, 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 th
Hi folks,
why not just introducing an "staticlib" useflag:
when disabling this, all the static library stuff is kicked off.
For those libs where the static stuff is needed, just leave it
enabled. And packages which really depend on static libs could
check for the proper useflags.
cu
--
-
On Donnerstag, 19. Juni 2008, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:20:10 +0100
>
> David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What's to stop an application from loading a "normal" library using
> > libtool's dlopen wrapper (perhaps so it can fail gracefully if the
> > library is missin
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:20:10 +0100
David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's to stop an application from loading a "normal" library using
> libtool's dlopen wrapper (perhaps so it can fail gracefully if the
> library is missing, for example)?
That's a pretty basic definition of a plugin.
Olivier Crête a écrit :
FOSS is the keyword here... the flash plugin dlopens a bunch of stuff
While I haven't checked, I doubt that it uses libltdl to do so :)
also kde-3.5 is using libtools dlopen for plugins
Yep, but then again, it's for plugins. The real problem is with static
linking :
Am Donnerstag, 19. Juni 2008 16:22:19 schrieb Olivier Crête:
> On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 14:08 +0200, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> > > Why only plugins? What's to stop an application from loading a
> > > "normal" library using libtool's dlopen wrapper (perhaps so it can fail
> > > gracefully if the library i
On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 14:08 +0200, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> > Why only plugins? What's to stop an application from loading a "normal"
> > library using libtool's dlopen wrapper (perhaps so it can fail gracefully
> > if
> > the library is missing, for example)?
>
> Nothing per se, but I have yet
On Thursday 19 June 2008 13:08:09 Rémi Cardona wrote:
> David Leverton a écrit :
> > Not for library consumers that use libtool but not pkgconfig.
>
> I'd be in favor of having a _default_ configuration for Gentoo where
> static binaries are never built except for some key packages (mainly for
> re
David Leverton a écrit :
Not for library consumers that use libtool but not pkgconfig.
I'd be in favor of having a _default_ configuration for Gentoo where
static binaries are never built except for some key packages (mainly for
rescue situations).
That way, in a dynamic-lib only system, l
On Thursday 19 June 2008 11:39:44 Luca Barbato wrote:
> Corner cases as usual...
What's that supposed to mean?
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
David Leverton wrote:
On Thursday 19 June 2008 10:36:12 Luca Barbato wrote:
1 getting static libraries (pkg-config replaces this use)
Not for library consumers that use libtool but not pkgconfig.
2 load plugins using libtool support
Why only plugins? What's to stop an application from loa
On Thursday 19 June 2008 10:36:12 Luca Barbato wrote:
> 1 getting static libraries (pkg-config replaces this use)
Not for library consumers that use libtool but not pkgconfig.
> 2 load plugins using libtool support
Why only plugins? What's to stop an application from loading a "normal"
library
David Leverton wrote:
On Thursday 19 June 2008 08:51:15 Luca Barbato wrote:
We could either pick a week and do a major ebuild update to remove .la
files when unnecessary or just append a notice about revdep rebuild.
How do you decide when they're unnecessary?
.la are used for :
1 getting st
On Thursday 19 June 2008 08:51:15 Luca Barbato wrote:
> We could either pick a week and do a major ebuild update to remove .la
> files when unnecessary or just append a notice about revdep rebuild.
How do you decide when they're unnecessary?
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:18:19 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò) wrote:
libogg and popt are now masked, and they'll wait a bit before return
to ~arch that way.
2 months later, any news on this ? I've been using the unmasked
versions so long; are we going
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:18:19 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò) wrote:
> libogg and popt are now masked, and they'll wait a bit before return
> to ~arch that way.
2 months later, any news on this ? I've been using the unmasked
versions so long; are we going to wait forever ? It's
On Saturday 19 April 2008, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> libogg and popt are now masked, and they'll wait a bit before return to
> ~arch that way.
please dont leave it like this. revbump both packages in question minus
the .la removal portion. libtool script scuttling is independent of ver
On Saturday 19 April 2008, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> > By the way, asking a question is not poisonous.
>
> Absolutely. Asking about it here was my suggestion.
his point was you should have asked him directly instead of starting a thread
on a mailing list to talk about him. doesnt seem terribly un
> By the way, asking a question is not poisonous.
Absolutely. Asking about it here was my suggestion.
--
Best regards, Wulf
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò kirjoitti:
Probably the best thing would be to get a better tool than
revdep-rebuild to handle broken .la files, as revdep-rebuild forces a
timewasting rebuild, while a good fix could be just a sed -i -e
's:/usr/lib\(64\)\?/lib\(.*\).la:-l\2:' on all the .la files, inst
20 matches
Mail list logo
