On 6/6/14, 9:27 AM, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 15:02:24 +0200 Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Quoting Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> (from Thu, 5 Jun 2014
18:53:03 +0200):
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:39:21 -0500 Bryan Drewery wrote:
I don't know what .la files are used for and have no time currently to
research it.
What is the impact to non-ports consumers of removing .la files? Do they
also need patches to make them build?
Removing a .la file is somewhat like a library version bump. Anything
that depends on it needs to be recompiled.
I remember from tests waaaaay in the past that not all programs will
be happy when the .la files are not there. I remember that I once
tried to remove the .la files but it didn't work as the program wanted
to open the .la files (after recompile). Maybe libltdl is openening
them? Did you make some checks/tests in this regard?
Essentially .la files are small shell scripts that set some variables so
in theory they can be used in all kinds of places, but this seems of
little practical value. Libltdl can open and parse .la files (to find
the name of the .so file it can dlopen) but it can also work directly
with .so files.
If a program uses .la files directly then the port can't delete them of
course, but so far I haven't encountered such programs.
My main question was non-ports consumers though. What is the impact on
them? We're talking a lot about bumping revisions and forcing rebuilds.
Will non-ports consumers require rebuild or changes if .la files are
missing?
Would these non-ports consumers be able to properly build and link
without .la files and without modifications? These .la files seem
similar to .pc files which are often critical to out-of-tree consumers
that assume Linux /usr paths instead of /usr/local paths.
--
Regards,
Bryan Drewery
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
