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

[Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1790 bytes --]

On 18:16 Wed 12 Nov     , Peter Alfredsen wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 November 2008, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> > Mart had already proposed a "static-lib" USE flag. Donnie just
> > suggested on IRC we turn this use flag into a FEATURES flag.
> 
> That's problematic. You can't turn off a FEATURES flag for individual 
> packages. See above.

Except for RESTRICT as you mention below...

> > I think those are much better options than just using this function
> > in some ebuilds.
> 
> I think it would make sense to have a static-libs USE flag and couple it 
> with use of epunt_la_files where it's appropriate. FEATURES flag, no. 
> The package maintainer decides which files get installed, noone else. 

If people want to compile an app statically (e.g. for embedded use, for 
portability to unknown systems, etc), Gentoo should enable them to do 
so. It shouldn't enable them to do so in erratic cases and randomly fail 
in others because the libtool archives are randomly distributed.

> With a FEATURES flag, we would break the whole tree and then need to fix 
> it up with RESTRICT=no-static-libs for every individual ebuild where it 
> fails. Tedious and not really worth our time. By selectively doing 
> this, we can do it intelligently and over time, minimizing the 
> inconvenience to users.

If anything, this suggestion is far more tedious because it requires 
modifications to orders of magnitude more ebuilds if we want to globally 
avoid libtool archives.

Have a FEATURES flag that is not on by default but is enabled by the 
developer profile, and I bet you'd find whatever needs a RESTRICT that 
we don't already know about pretty quick.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]