[gentoo-user] Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[gentoo-user] Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4199 bytes --]

Hi all users,

Some of you might have noticed, others might notice, a few would
probably not notice at all, that some Gentoo developers have started
removing the libtool archive files from packages that they maintain;
these changes have some times been applied to stable ebuilds as well,
but in all cases they won't be applied unless the package is re-emerged.

The reasoning behind this removal is too long to explain in this mail,
but you can find the start of it in [1], [2], and you can find some more
details in [3], [4] (yes these are all posts from my blog that I wrote
in the past few years). What matters to you (users) is that removing .la
files makes it less likely that unexpected libraries get linked in your
executables, even without --as-needed, or where --as-needed is not
working correctly.

If it sounds familiar as a situation, you might have gone through the
now-infamous libpng14 upgrade earlier this year [5], [6].

Removing .la files can cause, though, temporary disruption in the build
processes of libraries depending on those involved, because of the
transitive nature of .la files. For instance you could experiences
something like this:

libtool: link: `/usr/lib/libdbus-1.la' is not a valid libtool archive

with libdbus-1.la being replaced by other library names. If this is the
case, _do not panic_! Nothing is irremediably broken and nothing will
have to be rebuilt!

First of all, you should install lafilefixer and let it pass through the
currently-installed system:

# emerge lafilefixer
# lafilefixer --justfixit

This will convert the references to libtool archives to the -llibname
form, which works both with and without them.

Secondly, you can avoid any future requirement for this by sanitising
the newly installed .la files; this can be done either by using the
(currently testing) Portage 2.1.9 series, or by adding the following
snippet to your /etc/portage/bashrc:

post_src_install() {
    lafilefixer "${D}"
}

(Users of the bashrcng feature can install a specific plugin to do the
job, I don't remember the name of it though, sorry!)

It's a one time process that _will_ save you from more breakage and work
to do in the future, so please bear with us.

Note: removal of .la files altogether from the system is _not_ possible
and _is_ going to break your system. This is why we've got to handle
this process with care and can't simply nuke them entirely. A few
packages (imagemagick, mpg123) actually use the .la files to load their
plugins; the libtool macros to detect libltld also rely on the presence
of $libdir/libltdl.la (even though it's not really necessary). Plus I
know of at least one package that installs data files with .la extension
even though they are not libtool archives.

Note #2: if you run revdep-rebuild before the above process, it _will_
find you a lot of packages to rebuild, and you'll waste a huge amount of
time running in circles.

At this time it is unclear what the path forward will be, if we either
keep removing .la files from packages, caring about the fact they are
not needed, and causing these disruption for who hasn't gone through the
above-noted process yet, or if we'll be doing a mass-removal and deal
separately with eventual breakage on packages that use them, like those
noted above. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages and it's
mostly a matter of opinion and taste which one is "better".

We'll be looking forward to make this more widely available knowledge
and we hope to be able to provide a better experience for all of you at
the end of this (bumpy) journey.

Thanks!

[1] http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2008/04/14/what-about-those-la-files
[2] http://blog.flameeyes.eu/s/lafiles-2
[3] http://blog.flameeyes.eu/s/lafiles-plugins
[4] http://blog.flameeyes.eu/s/lafiles-chart
[5] http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2010/05/12/gentoo-failed-us-again
[6] http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2010/06/29/stable-users-libpng-update

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[walt]

On 09/29/2010 03:40 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Hi all users,
>  we hope to be able to provide a better experience for all of you at
> the end of this (bumpy) journey.
>
> Thanks!

On behalf of the Geriatric Gentoo Users Group I say, "No, please, allow us to
thank YOU for all the great work you do for gentoo!"

Maintaining high quality is always an uphill battle, and those of us in the GGUG
know and appreciate how much work you do on our behalf.  So, once again, thanks
from the old farts!

Alan, Volker, Dale -- anything to add?

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Dale]

walt wrote:
> On 09/29/2010 03:40 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> Hi all users,
>>  we hope to be able to provide a better experience for all of you at
>> the end of this (bumpy) journey.
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> On behalf of the Geriatric Gentoo Users Group I say, "No, please, 
> allow us to
> thank YOU for all the great work you do for gentoo!"
>
> Maintaining high quality is always an uphill battle, and those of us 
> in the GGUG
> know and appreciate how much work you do on our behalf.  So, once 
> again, thanks
> from the old farts!
>
> Alan, Volker, Dale -- anything to add?
>

+1  If I could reproduce, I would say +2.  Alas there is only one of 
me.  Stop clapping and jumping up and down in your seat.  ;-)

As least we know this is coming.  I just wonder why there wasn't 
something added to portage to fix this?  Maybe that wasn't doable.  If a 
person was to download a new stage3 and do a fresh install, would that 
put a end to this problem?  In other words, does this affect new 
installs the same as old installs?

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Thursday 30 September 2010, walt wrote:
> On 09/29/2010 03:40 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > Hi all users,
> > 
> >  we hope to be able to provide a better experience for all of you at
> > 
> > the end of this (bumpy) journey.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> 
> On behalf of the Geriatric Gentoo Users Group I say, "No, please, allow us
> to thank YOU for all the great work you do for gentoo!"
> 
> Maintaining high quality is always an uphill battle, and those of us in the
> GGUG know and appreciate how much work you do on our behalf.  So, once
> again, thanks from the old farts!
> 
> Alan, Volker, Dale -- anything to add?

thank you Diego for informing us about the upcoming fun. I am sure a lot of 
people will not read your mail and will complain about random breakage later.

As always. 

;)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Alan McKinnon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 724 bytes --]

Alan is relaxing by the seaside watching the waves go in and out. So he has
nothing sensible to add at this time, but maybe on Sunday :-)
 > On 09/29/2010 03:40 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> Hi all users,
>> we hope to be able to provide a better experience for all of you at
>> the end of this (bumpy) journey.
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> On behalf of the Geriatric Gentoo Users Group I say, "No, please, allow us
to
> thank YOU for all the great work you do for gentoo!"
>
> Maintaining high quality is always an uphill battle, and those of us in
the GGUG
> know and appreciate how much work you do on our behalf. So, once again,
thanks
> from the old farts!
>
> Alan, Volker, Dale -- anything to add?
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 886 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 865 bytes --]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:14:52 -0700, walt wrote:

> On 09/29/2010 03:40 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > Hi all users,
> >  we hope to be able to provide a better experience for all of you at
> > the end of this (bumpy) journey.
> >
> > Thanks!  

It's good to have direct communication from devs, especially on something
as important as this. Thanks.

> On behalf of the Geriatric Gentoo Users Group I say, "No, please, allow
> us to thank YOU for all the great work you do for gentoo!"
> 
> Maintaining high quality is always an uphill battle, and those of us in
> the GGUG know and appreciate how much work you do on our behalf.  So,
> once again, thanks from the old farts!
> 
> Alan, Volker, Dale -- anything to add?

Hey, how do I join GGUG?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

X-Modem- A device on the losing end of an encounter with lightning.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 636 bytes --]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:40:06 +0200, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:

> Secondly, you can avoid any future requirement for this by sanitising
> the newly installed .la files; this can be done either by using the
> (currently testing) Portage 2.1.9 series, or by adding the following
> snippet to your /etc/portage/bashrc:
> 
> post_src_install() {
>     lafilefixer "${D}"
> }

I find this part a little confusing. Are you saying to add the function
to bashrc if you are not using portage 2.1.9? How about those of us using
2.2?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Suborbital Ballistic-Propulsion Engineer
Not Exactly A Rocket Scientist

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[covici]

walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 09/29/2010 03:40 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > Hi all users,
> >  we hope to be able to provide a better experience for all of you at
> > the end of this (bumpy) journey.
> >
> > Thanks!
> 
> On behalf of the Geriatric Gentoo Users Group I say, "No, please, allow us to
> thank YOU for all the great work you do for gentoo!"
> 
> Maintaining high quality is always an uphill battle, and those of us in the GGUG
> know and appreciate how much work you do on our behalf.  So, once again, thanks
> from the old farts!

If I am using the portage 2.2 series, do I still need that bash snipet?

-- 
Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
How do
you spend it?

         John Covici
         covici@ccs.covici.com

[gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 747 bytes --]

Il giorno gio, 30/09/2010 alle 09.55 +0100, Neil Bothwick ha scritto:
> I find this part a little confusing. Are you saying to add the
> function
> to bashrc if you are not using portage 2.1.9? How about those of us
> using
> 2.2?
> 
2.2 series also got the same feature, but I don't remember since which
rc… the latest masked version is definitely fine though.

If you're running an older 2.2 or a 2.1.8 (or earlier) Portage, yes you
should be adding the function to bashrc (or upgrade to ~arch Portage if
you feel brave enough ;)).

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Peter Humphrey]

On Thursday 30 September 2010 09:53:40 Neil Bothwick wrote:

> Hey, how do I join GGUG?

You're too old, Neil. Same as me.

-- 
Rgds
Peter.          Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 315 bytes --]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:47:10 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> > Hey, how do I join GGUG?  
> 
> You're too old, Neil. Same as me.

In that case, I'll declare myself a member of the other GGUG, Grumpy
Gentoo User Group.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Micro-: (prefix) anything both very small and very expensive.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 837 bytes --]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:31:57 +0200, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:

> > I find this part a little confusing. Are you saying to add the
> > function
> > to bashrc if you are not using portage 2.1.9? How about those of us
> > using
> > 2.2?
> >   
> 2.2 series also got the same feature, but I don't remember since which
> rc… the latest masked version is definitely fine though.

Does that mean I shouldn't have to run lafilefixer as it  run
automatically on new installs?

> If you're running an older 2.2 or a 2.1.8 (or earlier) Portage, yes you
> should be adding the function to bashrc (or upgrade to ~arch Portage if
> you feel brave enough ;)).

I run ~arch on everything, I'm just too impatient to wait for anything to
be stabilised.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Mosquito - designed to make houseflies look better.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1001 bytes --]

Il giorno gio, 30/09/2010 alle 16.10 +0100, Neil Bothwick ha scritto:
> 
> > 2.2 series also got the same feature, but I don't remember since
> which
> > rc… the latest masked version is definitely fine though.
> 
> Does that mean I shouldn't have to run lafilefixer as it  run
> automatically on new installs? 

You should still run it once, to make sure that the system is clean, but
you can forget about it afterwards, and even unmerge it from the system.

The alternative, of course, is to emerge -e world — but I wouldn't
suggest that just to spend some time ;)

In either case, whether you add the function or leave it to Portage to
deal with, it should become transparent after the first time and nothing
else should be necessary for the continuous stability of the system.

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Peter Humphrey]

On Thursday 30 September 2010 16:08:25 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:47:10 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > Hey, how do I join GGUG?
> > 
> > You're too old, Neil. Same as me.
> 
> In that case, I'll declare myself a member of the other GGUG, Grumpy
> Gentoo User Group.

Is membership open to Grumpy Old Gentoo Users like me as well?

-- 
Rgds
Peter.          Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Mark Knecht]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@gmail.com> wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 30/09/2010 alle 16.10 +0100, Neil Bothwick ha scritto:
>>
>> > 2.2 series also got the same feature, but I don't remember since
>> which
>> > rc… the latest masked version is definitely fine though.
>>
>> Does that mean I shouldn't have to run lafilefixer as it  run
>> automatically on new installs?
>
> You should still run it once, to make sure that the system is clean, but
> you can forget about it afterwards, and even unmerge it from the system.
>
> The alternative, of course, is to emerge -e world — but I wouldn't
> suggest that just to spend some time ;)
>
> In either case, whether you add the function or leave it to Portage to
> deal with, it should become transparent after the first time and nothing
> else should be necessary for the continuous stability of the system.
>

Thanks for all the info Diego.

I found this morning on one system that uses ~amd64 portage that
lafilefixer did fix a couple of things so it seems that maybe I needed
it once at least.

QUESTIONS: If I add the function to /etc/portage/bashrc then does it
get updated and removed as I install new versions of portage? Will it
being there cause any problems with later versions of portage that
don't require it?

Cheers,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 370 bytes --]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:01:14 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> > In that case, I'll declare myself a member of the other GGUG, Grumpy
> > Gentoo User Group.  
> 
> Is membership open to Grumpy Old Gentoo Users like me as well?

Membership is open to anyone proud to admit to being a member :)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Do Roman paramedics refer to IV's as "4's"?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 731 bytes --]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:25:57 +0200, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:

> > Does that mean I shouldn't have to run lafilefixer as it runs
> > automatically on new installs?   
> 
> You should still run it once, to make sure that the system is clean, but
> you can forget about it afterwards, and even unmerge it from the system.

Ah, so portage uses an internal finction, it doesn't need lafilefixer. In
that case I'll run and unmerge it.

> The alternative, of course, is to emerge -e world — but I wouldn't
> suggest that just to spend some time ;)

I consider most uses of emerge -e world as the Gentoo equivalent of a
Windows reinstall.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

If at first you don't succeed, call in an airstrike.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Mark Knecht]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:25:57 +0200, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>
>> > Does that mean I shouldn't have to run lafilefixer as it runs
>> > automatically on new installs?
>>
>> You should still run it once, to make sure that the system is clean, but
>> you can forget about it afterwards, and even unmerge it from the system.
>
> Ah, so portage uses an internal finction, it doesn't need lafilefixer. In
> that case I'll run and unmerge it.
>
>> The alternative, of course, is to emerge -e world — but I wouldn't
>> suggest that just to spend some time ;)
>
> I consider most uses of emerge -e world as the Gentoo equivalent of a
> Windows reinstall.

So true. The couple of times I've used it my mental state was "I give up."

I must admit that nearly every day I spend using Windows 7 (which I
have to for my futures trading) I feel pretty much the same. So
depressing how bad even this newest version of Windows is compared to
where Linux & Gentoo have gotten to.

GGUG +1
GOGUG +1

- Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:01:14 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>
>    
>>> In that case, I'll declare myself a member of the other GGUG, Grumpy
>>> Gentoo User Group.
>>>        
>> Is membership open to Grumpy Old Gentoo Users like me as well?
>>      
> Membership is open to anyone proud to admit to being a member :)
>
>    

Here I am.  :-D

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Peter Humphrey]

On Thursday 30 September 2010 19:30:04 Mark Knecht wrote:

> GGUG +1
> GOGUG +1

Time to set up an e-mail list?

-- 
Rgds
Peter.          Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.

[gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[walt]

On 09/30/2010 11:13 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> I consider most uses of emerge -e world as the Gentoo equivalent of a
> Windows reinstall.

You are obviously already a member of the Geriatric Gentoo Users Group, but
perhaps you just forgot about it.  I certainly did.

Re: [gentoo-user] Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[William Kenworthy]

On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 00:40 +0200, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: 
> Hi all users,
> 
> Secondly, you can avoid any future requirement for this by sanitising
> the newly installed .la files; this can be done either by using the
> (currently testing) Portage 2.1.9 series, or by adding the following
> snippet to your /etc/portage/bashrc:
> 
> post_src_install() {
>     lafilefixer "${D}"
> }
> 


A question I cant see answered anywhere though its been asked:

What are the implications of adding this "snippet" - will it come back
to bite us (users) when the next version of portage comes along?


and in addition:
- none of my systems have a /etc/portage/bashrc so Ive created them, but
should they be executable, have a hash-bang line, ... ?

- will this snippet fix the problems with "equery check" marking
libraries as broken after lafilefixer is run? (I presume an emerge -e
world will be needed to update the database ...)

BillK

[gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1297 bytes --]

Il giorno sab, 02/10/2010 alle 19.51 +0800, William Kenworthy ha
scritto:
> What are the implications of adding this "snippet" - will it come back
> to bite us (users) when the next version of portage comes along?
> 
No, it'll waste a bit of time if it's not removed because the same logic
is running twice (once from lafilefixer, once from Portage), but they
won't conflict one wit the other, that I can assure you of.
> 
> - none of my systems have a /etc/portage/bashrc so Ive created them,
> but
> should they be executable, have a hash-bang line, ... ?

No need for anything, they are sourced so they can be non-executable and
they don't need hash-bangs.

> - will this snippet fix the problems with "equery check" marking
> libraries as broken after lafilefixer is run? (I presume an emerge -e
> world will be needed to update the database ...)

The new installed packages with the above post_src_unpack won't cause
any vdb-related issues because the files are fixed _before_ the merge to
live filesystem and thus the modified file's md5 and mtime will be saved
in it.

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Mark Knecht]

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:35 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@gmail.com> wrote:
> Il giorno sab, 02/10/2010 alle 19.51 +0800, William Kenworthy ha
> scritto:
>> What are the implications of adding this "snippet" - will it come back
>> to bite us (users) when the next version of portage comes along?
>>
> No, it'll waste a bit of time if it's not removed because the same logic
> is running twice (once from lafilefixer, once from Portage), but they
> won't conflict one wit the other, that I can assure you of.
>>
>> - none of my systems have a /etc/portage/bashrc so Ive created them,
>> but
>> should they be executable, have a hash-bang line, ... ?
>
> No need for anything, they are sourced so they can be non-executable and
> they don't need hash-bangs.
>
>> - will this snippet fix the problems with "equery check" marking
>> libraries as broken after lafilefixer is run? (I presume an emerge -e
>> world will be needed to update the database ...)
>
> The new installed packages with the above post_src_unpack won't cause
> any vdb-related issues because the files are fixed _before_ the merge to
> live filesystem and thus the modified file's md5 and mtime will be saved
> in it.
>
> --
> Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
> http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
>
> If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
> it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/
>
>

Diego,
   Thanks for the answers and thanks especially for all the work
you've done over the years.

Cheers,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Dale]

Still on topic but I have a question and you are in the know on this.  
I'm running unstable portage, 2.2_rc67 to be exact.  Does this new a 
version of portage take care of this already?  It sounds like it is the 
stable portage that has issues.   I been running unstable for a long 
while now.

Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-)

[gentoo-user] Re: Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

Il giorno sab, 02/10/2010 alle 09.56 -0500, Dale ha scritto:
> 
> Still on topic but I have a question and you are in the know on
> this.  
> I'm running unstable portage, 2.2_rc67 to be exact.  Does this new a 
> version of portage take care of this already?  It sounds like it is
> the 
> stable portage that has issues.   I been running unstable for a long 
> while now. 

2.2 series does support this but I don't know which one of the RCs added
it; latest ~arch/masked version is fine though, so you might just
upgrade to that and you're done :)

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Dale]

Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno sab, 02/10/2010 alle 09.56 -0500, Dale ha scritto:
>    
>> Still on topic but I have a question and you are in the know on
>> this.
>> I'm running unstable portage, 2.2_rc67 to be exact.  Does this new a
>> version of portage take care of this already?  It sounds like it is
>> the
>> stable portage that has issues.   I been running unstable for a long
>> while now.
>>      
> 2.2 series does support this but I don't know which one of the RCs added
> it; latest ~arch/masked version is fine though, so you might just
> upgrade to that and you're done :)
>
>    

One reason I asked, I'm about to upgrade to KDE 4.5.2 and I was just 
going to do a emerge -e world and let it rebuild everything.  After all, 
the KDE packages are pretty much the biggest packages anyway, except for 
OOo of course.

I'm still having trouble with it finding all the tarballs right now 
tho.  It appears that they haven't spread around to the servers yet.  I 
keep getting "No such directory" errors.  Maybe they will float around 
pretty soon.

Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Tanstaafl]

On 2010-09-29 6:40 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> First of all, you should install lafilefixer and let it pass through the
> currently-installed system:
> 
> # emerge lafilefixer
> # lafilefixer --justfixit
> 
> This will convert the references to libtool archives to the -llibname
> form, which works both with and without them.
> 
> Secondly, you can avoid any future requirement for this by sanitising
> the newly installed .la files; this can be done either by using the
> (currently testing) Portage 2.1.9 series, or by adding the following
> snippet to your /etc/portage/bashrc:
> 
> post_src_install() {
>     lafilefixer "${D}"
> }

For those of us who prefer to stay with the stable portage, am I correct
that once the 2.1.9 portage series goes stable, that we would then
remove the above from /etc/portage/bashrc? What would happen if I forgot
to do so (ie, how important is it)?

Thanks Diego for communicating this situation so well... it is much
appreciated.

Charles

[gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1063 bytes --]

Il giorno sab, 02/10/2010 alle 19.14 -0400, Tanstaafl ha scritto:
> 
> 
> For those of us who prefer to stay with the stable portage, am I
> correct
> that once the 2.1.9 portage series goes stable, that we would then
> remove the above from /etc/portage/bashrc? What would happen if I
> forgot
> to do so (ie, how important is it)?
> 
Yes once 2.1.9.x series of Portage goes stable (i.e.: if all goes well,
by November) there won't be any need for adding the snipped; you'll
still have to run at least once lafilefixer to avoid keeping stuff
around on the system unfixed, but then it'll be taken care of
transparently.

The only effect of forgetting it in there is that it'll take a couple of
seconds extra at each build since both Portage and lafilefixer iterate
over the package content, but no ill results will be caused, it is
pretty safe.

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

[Tanstaafl]

On 2010-10-03 12:15 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Yes once 2.1.9.x series of Portage goes stable (i.e.: if all goes well,
> by November) there won't be any need for adding the snipped; you'll
> still have to run at least once lafilefixer to avoid keeping stuff
> around on the system unfixed, but then it'll be taken care of
> transparently.
> 
> The only effect of forgetting it in there is that it'll take a couple of
> seconds extra at each build since both Portage and lafilefixer iterate
> over the package content, but no ill results will be caused, it is
> pretty safe.

Thanks Diego, and thanks again for the detailed warning+fix on this
situation... as always, gentoo rocks! :)