On 03/08/2016 10:00, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Aug 2 22:09, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
Libtool .la files are generally a waste of time and space. They slow down
linking of other libraries with libtool, and they cause otherwise
unnecessary private dependencies to be pulled in by -devel packages.
Therefore, the major distros generally remove them from their packages
unless they are really necessary.
When we first enabled Cygwin for x86_64, as we had no backwards
compatibility to worry about, I made removing all .la files the default.
AFAIK this has worked well, and any missing link libraries that the presence
thereof would have masked have already been fixed.
In order to do the same for x86 without breaking builds of other packages,
AFAICS we would need a perpetual postinstall script which will continually
remove them. The downside is that (unless the script is made a *LOT* more
complicated) a number of -devel packages will show up as "Incomplete" until
such time they are rebuilt with a new version of cygport.
Any objections?
User confusion about incomplete packages?
What I wonder is, if cygport builds don't create/install .la files
anymore, don't we end up without them at one point anyway? Isn't it
sufficient if they go away over time?
Corinna
I prefer just the change in cygport behaviour.
Please note we have still some *.la files on x86_64
for other reasons and we can not run an indiscriminate prune
on x86.
$ ls -1 /usr/lib/*.la
/usr/lib/libguilereadline-v-17.la
/usr/lib/libguilereadline-v-18.la
/usr/lib/libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-3.la
/usr/lib/libguile-srfi-srfi-1-v-3.la
/usr/lib/libguile-srfi-srfi-4-v-3.la
/usr/lib/libguile-srfi-srfi-60-v-2.la
/usr/lib/libltdl.la
/usr/lib/libntl.la
Regards
Marco
