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 1KzDGk-0003Qu-D6 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:36:10 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7CB65E0251; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 16:36:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58178E0251 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 16:36:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 0x3ef266d2.svgnxx4.dynamic.dsl.tele.dk (0x3ef266d2.svgnxx4.dynamic.dsl.tele.dk [62.242.102.210]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31DF66553E for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 16:36:06 +0000 (UTC) From: Peter Alfredsen To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 18:34:31 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <200811091704.10291.loki_val@gentoo.org> <20081109161043.GK23310@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20081109161043.GK23310@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: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart7435837.NPBOuSIcTX"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200811091734.35331.loki_val@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 8e895318-8c18-400c-a678-c1ccea708766 X-Archives-Hash: 3a87f945051cbbce37231f642d7f6d17 --nextPart7435837.NPBOuSIcTX Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline 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. > > + then > > + debug-print "Scanelf found, proceeding..." > > + ebegin "Removing useless .la files" > > + find "${TARGET}" -name '*.la' '(' -type l -o -type f ')' -exec > > rm -f '{}' '+' + eend 0 > > + else > > + 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=20 systems and with plugin systems that use dlopen. I actually have no way=20 of knowing that the .la files are needed on those arches, but I had=20 your archs in mind when doing the patch. =2D-=20 /PA --nextPart7435837.NPBOuSIcTX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkkXERsACgkQtEGUx4TfHiQSZgCfSHaZhZAYyVxGe+JpOW4sn3ge ujIAn1d6Iqq4SwPwqd2b8755Ux1BpXvT =7Yk5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart7435837.NPBOuSIcTX--