NOT installing the .la files

Mikhail Teterin mi+kde at
Fri Jun 16 15:03:01 UTC 2006

On Friday 16 June 2006 02:16, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
= > Unless there is a convincing example of things breaking without an .la
= > file, these should be deleted.
= You know it doesn't work that way around. Prove that it's safe, before you
= go ahead and potentially break everyone's installations out there.

The consensus *was* that the .la files aren't needed. Either I missed the 
discussion on their restoration on ports@ (PRs don't count), or the burden of 
proof, that they are neccessary is on *you* :-)

= There's convincing evidence it's not - after all, the old libtool *was*
= patched in order to support this (and still never quite did for everything,
= I and kde@ should know), while the current one is not.

I am not "breaking everyone's installation out there". I'm simply advocating, 
that ports should not install their .la files -- as things used to be. The 
only argument against it so far was that maintaining a local hack in libtool 
for was too difficult for the libtool maintainers (not that they would allow 
anyone else into their fiefdom to maintain it, though). Fine, a port can 
simply delete its own .la files in post-install.

NOW the second argument is offered: that the .la files are actually needed -- 
I don't see, where that is. You are saying, that's _going to happen_ because 
we are "in transition". Well, that seems like a transition for the worse, and 
I consider ports, that require .la files to be broken...

The lt_dlopen, et. al are ugly hacks intended for poorly maintained legacy 
operating systems. FreeBSD does not need them and any software _ported_ to it 
should be patched to use the standard interfaces and APIs.

Somewhere somehow minizing a porter's headache (however important) became of 
higher priority over the cleanliness of the port and even of the performance 
of the built software. We really ought to stop this trend...


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list