On 3/12/10, Damian <damian.o...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Bummer. Are you sure your libarchive.la is not another orphan, just >> like liblzmadec.la was? > Indeed. libarchive.la is not owned by any package. Is this a symptom > of a bigger problem?
Probably not, unless running Gentoo is considered a big problem. :) You can read many things about the problems of dynamic vs static linking from, e.g., flameeyes' blog. >> Please check (if you are still interested in hunting down the cause). > Sure, and I really appreciate the gentoo community help. Ah, I got the impression that you might have been satisfied with USE="-lzma". >> You should probably only end up with that la file if you have >> USE="static-libs" for libarchive -- which (if I'm reading correctly >> the paludis output attached in the bug) you do not have currently >> enabled. > That's correct. Should I enable static-libs and recompile libarchive? I don't think so, but I don't know what your system is for. If the box currently runs without the static libs then I'd guess you don't need them. I think you might want to hear a third opinion, if someone else has one to lend. >> But since you have the libarchive.la file on your system you may have >> had the USE flag enabled at one point, or the ebuild may have changed >> to allow separate dynamic and static building while your package >> manager might not have kept up with its records. > Ok, if that's the case I will report it to the paludis developers. Given Neil's comment I think it might not be a bug, but rather a nasty "feature", apparently of portage as well (that was news to me). -- Arttu V.
