On 09-11-2008 18:34:31 +0200, Peter Alfredsen wrote:
> On Sunday 09 November 2008, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > On 09-11-2008 18:04:05 +0200, Peter Alfredsen wrote:
> > > + # If this is a non-ELF system, chances are good that the .la
> > > files will be needed. + if type -P scanelf &> /dev/null
> >
> > I think this is a not so cool way to check for an ELF system.
>
> Indeed, I think it's a horrid way. Please find a better one.
% uname -a
Darwin tefnut.cheops.ods.org 8.11.0 Darwin Kernel Version 8.11.0: Wed Oct 10
18:26:00 PDT 2007; root:xnu-792.24.17~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
PowerMac8,2 Darwin
% scanelf --version
pax-utils-0.1.18_pre0004: scanelf.c compiled Oct 19 2008
$Id: scanelf.c,v 1.194 2008/09/29 06:05:55 vapier Exp $
scanelf written for Gentoo by <solar and vapier @ gentoo.org>
% scanmacho --version
pax-utils-0.1.18_pre0004: scanmacho.c compiled Oct 19 2008
$Id: scanmacho.c,v 1.5 2008/10/19 18:11:59 grobian Exp $
scanmacho written for Gentoo by <solar, vapier and grobian @ gentoo.org>
You could identify ELF a bit more reliable by running file on e.g.
"${ROOT}/bin/bash", or just by building a list of CHOSTs that you know
are ELF systems.
> > > + debug-print "scanelf not found, this appears to be a non-ELF
> > > system." + debug-print "non-ELF systems are likely to need
> > > .la
> > > files." + debug-print ".la files not removed from ${TARGET}"
> >
> > rationale?
>
> "I've been told" that .la files are really only needed on non-ELF
> systems and with plugin systems that use dlopen. I actually have no way
> of knowing that the .la files are needed on those arches, but I had
> your archs in mind when doing the patch.
Ok. What worries me though is that this would result in some systems
having libtool files whereas the majority does not. E.g. removing them
apparently fixes a problem that then crops up on those systems or
something. Can't think of any atm.
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
