From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KzDSq-0004X6-NS for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:48:41 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D7C77E033A; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 16:48:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from amun.cheops.ods.org (amun.cheops.ods.org [82.95.138.191]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89835E033A for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 16:48:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tefnut.cheops.ods.org ([2001:888:1022:0:211:24ff:fe37:e46e] helo=gentoo.org) by amun.cheops.ods.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KzDSn-0004BM-HV for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2008 17:48:38 +0100 Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 17:48:39 +0100 From: Fabian Groffen To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass Message-ID: <20081109164839.GM23310@gentoo.org> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <200811091704.10291.loki_val@gentoo.org> <20081109161043.GK23310@gentoo.org> <200811091734.35331.loki_val@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200811091734.35331.loki_val@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (Darwin 8.11.0, VIM - Vi IMproved 7.2) Organization: Gentoo Foundation, Inc. X-Content-Scanned: by amun.cheops.ods.org (Exim Exiscan) using SpamAssassin and ClamAV X-Archives-Salt: 706d2a46-392f-480a-a91b-72c3ec5f3b32 X-Archives-Hash: 9bcd18fffc14c3109797aa2886b761f6 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 % 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 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