Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:33:29 +0200 From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> To: Michael Nottebrock <lofi@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org, Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>, Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com>, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> Subject: Re: NOT installing the .la files Message-ID: <m3odwwaux2.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> In-Reply-To: <200606140103.24517.lofi@freebsd.org> (Michael Nottebrock's message of "Wed, 14 Jun 2006 01:03:19 %2B0200") References: <200606112110.39148@aldan> <20060613170732.tql5t2lsn4w4ggog@netchild.homeip.net> <m3k67k3h1i.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> <200606140103.24517.lofi@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Nottebrock <lofi@freebsd.org> writes: > On Tuesday, 13. June 2006 23:02, Matthias Andree wrote: >> Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> writes: >> > As already visible in the mail you reply to: I agree that it is a good >> > idea to keep libtool as close as possible to the upstream version. >> >> Can we as port maintainers take this - and other relevant posts - as the >> "go ahead" for not jumping hoops to remove .la files if some third-party >> software we port installs them? > > Absolutely. Hmmm... still no consensus. So I'll just leave my ports alone until consensus is reached. I've never understood what was so terribly wrong about .la files anyways. Unneeded perhaps but as long as they don't break anything, why bother. -- Matthias Andree
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m3odwwaux2.fsf>