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 1L17Os-0005Dk-A1 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:44:26 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ACD52E01DD; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:44:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com (ey-out-1920.google.com [74.125.78.145]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 710D4E01DD for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:44:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 4so628956eyk.10 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:44:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; bh=6wUADAJyUqf2IZlthtsgGW9fnTfyYCG+jGHNADOSJ/A=; b=TXMlKqUYMOa+dWZUfz74tGlu7vT6Q7y1lA/CKm1cfeOKjlMbvuZkvqQe4Bzr2HRZYh oRhbLUgqVSii630ENqqlQns+3HypFDAMvfsr/2nIvVOszUB0/Kf3iMq7wSyYGPxcZi3a iaSbfARtt+B5YRPLgbdPpFcMvfbjJ6G37tYL8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :message-id; b=iTHWWlKDb/6RXqHwSNyRH3uJbQg+fySacjMUcT21uA5L6vBhiz6yUksiSzqSQ5unJS +EIYLo95Fi33rbmE7m7gClDrAuKVLoLzZxu8vIaZbOacHeY/+g9xqmpMuNOAotleWE8W N0x/d2yH9pt362WaLA/AGg5ZlGlPvW9m0PCKU= Received: by 10.210.59.3 with SMTP id h3mr1619481eba.44.1226702663373; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:44:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.0.2? (5ad00ca9.bb.sky.com [90.208.12.169]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f13sm2285423gvd.4.2008.11.14.14.44.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:44:22 -0800 (PST) From: David Leverton To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:44:18 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <200811091704.10291.loki_val@gentoo.org> <200811121816.04870.loki_val@gentoo.org> <20081114152530.3f560c57@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20081114152530.3f560c57@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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200811142244.19100.levertond@googlemail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 0ca760e1-0970-41c8-bfe5-e5eb774e93a8 X-Archives-Hash: 94aef7e6f0bd2d45d278f788f73a6abc On Friday 14 November 2008 14:25:30 Alexis Ballier wrote: > Moreover .la files are good when you want to link statically to some > library because they carry the needed information; they should be > punted only when said library provides a good alternative (like a .pc > file with correct libs.private field). Even if the .pc file exists and is fully correct, removing the .la file still breaks any application that links statically and relies on libtool to deal with library dependencies, rather than using pkg-config (and there's no reason why an application /shouldn't/ do that - after all, it works perfectly with the library as upstream released it). Maybe we think it's worth the effort to tweak the application's build system (there probably won't be all that many applications that need it, after all), but this /is/ an incompatible change to the library, and if we're going to do it, we should at least be aware of what we're doing.