From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Mar 1 9: 3: 4 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2199637B401 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 09:03:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from transport.cksoft.de (transport.cksoft.de [62.111.66.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EF9C43FBD for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 09:03:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bzeeb-lists@zabbadoz.net) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by transport.cksoft.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57B871FFB75; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 18:02:59 +0100 (CET) Received: by transport.cksoft.de (Postfix, from userid 66) id 78FB71FFB71; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 18:02:58 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.int.zabbadoz.net (Postfix, from userid 1060) id 03B8815348; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 16:59:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.int.zabbadoz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDA331532F; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 16:59:34 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 16:59:34 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" X-X-Sender: bz@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net To: Joe Marcus Clarke Cc: Michael Nottebrock , Kris Kennaway , ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: howto stop port from installing .la files ? In-Reply-To: <1046535678.310.5.camel@gyros> Message-ID: References: <20030227223051.GA91669@rot13.obsecurity.org> <200303011713.19351.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <1046535678.310.5.camel@gyros> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS snapshot-20020300 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > > > > It's a policy that we shouldn't install .la files, because as far as > > > > anyone knows they are useless on FreeBSD. > > > > > > I have far too few knowledge about this so would it be possible to > > > explain a bit more or do your have a pointer where to find more > > > information on this ("useless on FreeBSD") ? > > > > At least not in FreeBSD docs. Will explained it quite well in this thread why > > they are NOT useless, you can read more on dlopen() and its > > libltdl-counterparts lt_dlopen() and lt_dlopenext() in dlopen's manpage and > > in libtool's documentation, which is available in several places on the net. Reading about libtool is not the problem. Reading about WHY Kris said it is useless on FreeBSD (be it true or not) was what I thought about. Kris: can you please explain your first statement ? This for me makes sense as portlint compains about \.la files in pkg-plist and advises one to use USE_LIBTOOL which will then set LIBTOOLFLAGS?= --disable-ltlibs in Mk/bsd.port.mk which normally would prevent \.la files from being installed if I got everything right. Someone must have tought about all this so there must be at least some truth behind it. Can (s)he comment on this ? Or should it simply be the catchall for most of the ports that really don't need it ? So would correct statement be s.th. like: they are useless as long as the port doesn't use lt_dlopen or lt_dlopenext ? > In my porting, I have only found two instances where they are really > needed. That was with guile and librep. In every other instance I do > my best to remove them. I figure, if the application doesn't need them, > why take up the space (little has it may be in the overall scheme of > things)? > > My advice is to see if your port will work without them. If not, > install them, and note why you're doing it. Well trial and error is not the way I would like to work but want to understand this. Should s.th. like find . -type f -name "*.c" -exec grep dlopen {} /dev/null \; be a "solution" to show if they are (not) needed ? -- Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT 56 69 73 69 74 http://www.zabbadoz.net/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message