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 1L29hF-0000hX-IC for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:23:41 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BAC9BE0436; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:23:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70247E0436 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:23:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B01C64A23 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:23:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -0.739 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.739 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.793, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cLes6sucfl65 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:23:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 172F6649DE for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:23:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1L29gv-0002UU-73 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:23:21 +0000 Received: from 91.84.81.48 ([91.84.81.48]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:23:21 +0000 Received: from slong by 91.84.81.48 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:23:21 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Please review: function epunt_la_files for eutils.eclass Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:19:29 +0000 Message-ID: References: <200811091704.10291.loki_val@gentoo.org> <200811121831.49814.loki_val@gentoo.org> <20081113221413.71edadab@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <200811150005.54423.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=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 91.84.81.48 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.9 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 937fcc6b-46dc-47d9-8ee4-3a5701f37df4 X-Archives-Hash: 90abc68d4931b74b2a48964ff15cb3d5 Peter Alfredsen wrote: > I've given this some thought and I think I've been convinced that > dberkholz' position is probably the most tenable. If this is to be > done, we should do it in a documented "Gentooish" way. The problem with > going down the FEATURES road are two-fold: > 1) What should the behavior of the FEATURES flag be? > > I think it should act like an INSTALL_MASK="*.la" and > EXTRA_ECONF="--disable-static" > > There should also be a function, let's call it "exemptthis.la" that > would exempt a .la file from being punted, so the RESTRICT could be > made on a per-la file basis. > If it's a FEATURE defaulting to off, which makes sense from the opt-in perspective, surely a simple Property would do the job for most cases? > 2) Who implements in portage? > > [...I know nothing of portage internals...] > Properties are bedded in, all you need is a bit of BASH, to be run for those packages you maintain; and to add the functionality you mentioned above, etc. > 3) Grunt work? > > This should be rather easy. Just assign the bugs to me and I shall add > RESTRICTs as-needed. > Might be wise to prove it on a smaller subset first, for those packages where you know it's not going to cause an issue, and if it did it wouldn't cause a machine to be unbootable. (Personally I'd understand a user being peeved if they couldn't get their desktop up, but it's not that big a deal provided there's an easy command to run to fix it, and there's notice given; this is Gentoo, after all.) > Anyway, we really need to start punting .la files one way or the other. > For desktop users of our distro, they do a lot more harm than good. For > embedded, perhaps static linking serves some purpose, but really, if > you can't afford dynamic linking, what are you going to run on your > board? > Libtool is sweet from a software developer's pov, especially in its heyday. OFC it might cause distros a bit of aggro, but hey you get to decide what to patch and how. I'm in favour so long as it is only ever an opt-in, or not enabled in anything but developer or desktop/Linux profiles (the latter after at least a year or two of testing and bug resolution.)