cvs commit: ports/devel/libvanessa_adt Makefile pkg-plist ports/devel/libvanessa_adt/files patch-ltmain.sh

[Oliver Eikemeier]

Michael Nottebrock wrote:

> On Tuesday 23 March 2004 21:24, Mark Linimon wrote:
> 
>>Although it has indeed been discussed to death, it has never made
>>it into the Porter's Handbook.  Since you are familiar with the
>>rationale (I, personally, do not remember), could you possibly
>>summarize the purpose that they serve so that I can write up a PR
>>against the Handbook?  
> 
> lt_dlopen() from libltdl requires libtool-archives in order to work. There is 
> no consensus about the question if a working lt_dlopen is worth having 
> libtool archives installed by all ports which do provide them by default 
> (many do). Some people have suggested to fix libltdl to use FreeBSD's native 
> dlopen(), however, to my knowledge there have been no patches against libltdl 
> as of date and many projects include libltdl in their own sources if they're 
> using it.
So far I followed the former discussions, but I can't remember an example
where something *really* uses the .la files. Just `they might be used' is
not really helpful. Take for example the OpenLDAP ports: I removed the .la
files to adhere to FreeBSD conventions. Should I include them? Which would
be the customers?

> Also, it should be noted that the prime motivation to remove ".la files" are 
> the warnings from portlint (and sometimes complaints from users/committers 
> who do not know about libltdl). If those warnings were removed, there would 
> be no requirement to additionally document anything, IMHO.
Hmmm... The libtools ports remove them, and most ports don't have them, to
reduce clutter in lib/ a little. I guess documentation when and why these
should be installed would be nice. Otherwise you have lots of ports where
they would be needed, but aren't there, or ports where they are useless
but are installed. Will this help the project?

-Oliver