From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4Tss-0000CJ-IZ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:02:38 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5302D1C064 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:02:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC2131C031 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:20:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4TDv-0003o5-PH for gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 09:20:19 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 09:20:19 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 09:20:19 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-amd64] Re: No LibX11 Libtool Archive Installed Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:20:09 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20110327221640.ce25fdb4.frank.peters@comcast.net> <4d900636.425bdf0a.0fce.6ade@mx.google.com> <20110328212404.fc6fc658.frank.peters@comcast.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.134 (Wait for Me; GIT 9383aac branch-testing) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: a4e1009a0b69ed50004bffacd229f0d5 Frank Peters posted on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:24:04 -0400 as excerpted: > On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:08:58 +0000 (UTC) > Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote: >=20 >=20 >> FWIW, I've been using a PKG_INSTALL_MASK=3D"*.la" setting here in my >> make.conf for some time, now. That keeps portage from installing the >> files entirely. >> >> > That's a good suggestion, but there is one minor problem remaining. >=20 > Although I rely on portage to do all the "heavy lifting" for me, there > is a small number of packages that I, for various reasons, still want t= o > install myself -- and I'm sure there are lots of others that do this as > well. These self-installed packages will often insert .la files into > the tree, and, in fact, I believe that this kind of condition had cause= d > my original ".la file not found" problem. >=20 > So the .la issue is definitely something for everyone to keep in mind, > and especially for those who may self-install an occasional extra > package. Question: Why don't you create (or modify the gentoo/overlay tree=20 version, if you can find one) an ebuild which does the installation using= =20 portage? That way it still tracks it, and provided you keep reasonable=20 dependencies in the ebuild, it'll track them too. FWIW, there's a couple things I install privately. One is a live net-nnt= p/ pan, from the khaley repo, testing branch, for which I created an ebuild,= =20 which of course would eliminate the *.la files if any (it's a leaf=20 executable package, no such files, but if there were...). The other is=20 the kernel, for which I use my own non-ebuild scripts and package.provide= d=20 a 2.6.9999 kernel for portage dependency purposes. Of course the kernel=20 doesn't have *.la files to worry about... =3D:^) Otherwise, I'd no-doubt script the build and installation using my own=20 scripts, for much the same reason I have with the kernel -- it's a=20 repeated action that lends itself to automation -- and appending a find- and-delete on *.la files step to such a script would be reasonably=20 trivial, once I had automated the rest of the process. Or just script lafilefixer after the install, but I'd probably go the=20 delete route, myself, just 'cause I'm tired of *.la file headaches and th= e=20 less I have to see or deal with the things, the happier I am! But you're right, that's something to think about, for those libraries=20 (the only type of package that really has *.la files) you build yourself. --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman