Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
Hello!
I think flameeyes should have sent this himself in the first place, but
since he's clearly not going to do that and prefers to just force it on
our users I'm mailing this...
Have we not learn't! I hardly think that revdep-rebuild is an obvious
solution to this issue. So now we have doomed our users ( and some of
our dev's ) to having to search for a solution. I note that within the
ebuild there isn't even a elog explaining what to do. If we are going
to make changes like this we need to provide an effective "news service".
I'm sure this was one of the issues that arose during the "hot house
months".
I actually find this incident rather depressing. especially after we
(seem to) have done so well with the baselayout/openrc migration. ( I do
realise that one is significantly bigger than the other and therefore
requires a bigger "fan fair" ).
flameeyes talked about .la files in his blog recently:
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/articles/2008/04/14/what-about-those-la-files
Im sure everyone will find that
Now he decided that simply removing them for several packages, resulting
in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218286 and its dupes.
What a surprise. never could have guessed.
This is annoying for quite a few users as they will have to rebuild lots
of stuff for KDE, Gnome and other packages and I'm not sure if this is
really the way we want to fix --as-needed failures.
++. We sure do like to annoy our users.
Furthermore, such things should not be decided and pushed through
unilaterally but be agreed upon here prior to doing this change.
++. I actually have no problem with agreeing with it, currently my
problem is the complete and utter lack of any _planned_ upgrade path.
What do we think users are going to be saying at the end of the year
when after every sync they have to revdep-rebuild. Maybe, if we proceed
with this, we investigate what can have its la files removed and do it
all in one go. therefore ppl won't have to rebuild kde/gnome ( or any
other large and time consuming package) over and over and over and over
and over and over ....... again. Hell it would even be better to
"batch" a few conversions so that each revdep-rebuild fixes multiple
breakages in one.
Especially since even though removing .la files might make sense (with
exceptions, of course) we should think about either doing it
distribution-wide or not at all.
++++++
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
