NOT installing the .la files
Alexander Leidinger
Alexander at Leidinger.net
Mon Jun 12 09:22:37 UTC 2006
Quoting Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde at aldan.algebra.com> (from Sun, 11 Jun
2006 21:51:36 -0400):
> On Sunday 11 June 2006 21:21, Mark Linimon wrote:
> = Unavoidable, for KDE; and thus, not worth spending all the time modifying
> = ports to either install them or not. This makes maintainance a lot easier.
>
> Well, they are all installed by the same ${LOCALBASE}/bin/libtool
>
> /bin/sh /opt/bin/libtool --mode=install /usr/bin/install -c \
> libmimetic.la /opt/lib/libmimetic.la
>
> The script is installed by its port, which could patch it to ignore the .la
> files altogether -- keeping the maintaince of the rest of the ports just as
> simple and the filesystem slightly cleaner
>
> There are 321 .la files on my system, for example. Do I need this junk?
If you use KDE: yes (maybe not all, but some of them).
I don't know why, but my first guess is they load <lib>.la instead of
<lib>.so in case they use dlopen() or the corresponding function of
libltdl.
Strictly speaking the .la files are not needed on a lot of common
platforms. But on some system they may be needed. At the time we did
not install the .la files, I whould support you in the removal of
those files, but since the current policy is to use the vendor
supplied functionality I suggest to not remove the .la files.
You could try to convince the vendor that they are not needed on
current platforms. A litte bit of backward compatibility has to be
added then, e.g. if libltdl gets asked to load a .la it should look
for .so instead on those platforms.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
Selling GoodYear Eagle F1 235/40ZR18, 2x 4mm + 2x 5mm, ~150 EUR
you have to pick it up between Germany/Saarland and Luxembourg/Capellen
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
More information about the freebsd-ports
mailing list