El dom, 31-10-2010 a las 14:56 +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò escribió: > Il giorno dom, 31/10/2010 alle 03.30 -0100, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto > ha scritto: > > As agreed in the meeting, as a first draft, we have that "the motion > > is > > to drop la files, when appropriate, through the use of a function in > > eutils that will only be called if the static-libs use flag is not set > > or unless the package relies on pkg-config". > > Let's differentiate already: > > For *plugin* .la files, they should removed if the software is not > relying on them to load its plugins, see [1]. This is the case for PAM, > Python, Ruby and I guess Perl, which commonly receive stupid .la files > in their paths. Repeat after me: they should just all be deleted _right > now_ since they are not going to be linked by anyone else and thus > Portage 2.1.9 is not making any difference. >
In that case, I think the work on these cases should start as soon as possible, but I think that getting bugs reported (probably from your next tinderbox run if possible) would help. For example, I have just seen in my system that packages like dev-python/pyorbit and dev-libs/libgamin are installing these .la files that should not be needed, but I am sure lots of other python packages are also affected :-/. But I would also like to know what would be the best way to drop them in these cases: - For python, looks like calling python_clean_installation_image from python.eclass at src_install phase is the proper way. - For pam, ruby or perl I have no idea :-( Thanks
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
