Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass

[Peter Alfredsen <loki_val@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2127 bytes --]

On Wednesday 12 November 2008, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> On K, 2008-11-12 at 15:40 +0100, Peter Alfredsen wrote:

> > It's a utility function. I've done all I can to ensure it'll be
> > used wisely. Whether it is used wisely is between you and ( $ROOT
> > or $666 ). But let me point out that in most leaf-packages,
> > removing la files will cause no pain, but will ensure that they do
> > not have to be rebuilt if a .la-listed dependency loses its .la
> > file.
>
> Unless a system happens to have USE=static used for a few lower level
> indirect dependencies (and those very low level libraries having such
> an option is sometimes, albeit rarely, quite cool for embedded use
> cases). It just breaks then according to other subthreads, and you
> have no way to really check for that in your utility function.

My English fails me here. To me it's not clear which cases of breakage 
we're speaking of here (subthreads in that context?). An example 
perhaps?

> There is still no solution for things that do not break ABI, but get
> rebuilt with different USE flags, for example the USE=esd fiasco
> where to get rid of esound you had to remove USE=esd and rebuild many
> packages with revdep-rebuild for no reason other than libtool being
> stupid. This stupidity should be fixed, not delayed with workarounds
> to a small subset of cases.

I disagree. Just because you can have a feast tomorrow doesn't mean that 
you should abstain from eating today.

> > We talked about this on #gentoo-dev the other day. 200 packages out
> > of 1000 on my system had to be rebuilt because of this. If libxcb
> > didn't use la files, that wouldn't have been necessary for the
> > majority of those. If the packages themselves didn't use la files,
> > it wouldn't have been necessary either.
>
> Or if libtool would be fixed to not cause that pain in the first
> place..

That would indeed be nice. Please convince me that you can implement an 
upstreamable solution within 2 months time and I won't be needing this 
function.

[Snip more pie-in-the-sky]

Show me the code, please.

-- 
/PA

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]