FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-01-2010, 10:27 AM
Tomáš Chvátal
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

Hi lads,
due to recent situation about .la files status we would like to inform
users about this situation. See attached file that we propose to be
included as news item.

Step 2 will be finding global policy how to get rid of them as fast as
possible without too much more hassle for our users

--------
Tomáš Chvátal
Gentoo Linux Developer [Clustering/Council/KDE/QA/Sci/X11]
E-Mail : scarabeus@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 94A4 5CCD 85D3 DE24 FE99 F924 1C1E 9CDE 0341 4587
GnuPG ID : 03414587
Title: Removal of .la files
Author: Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2010-10-01
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0

Some of you might have noticed, others might notice, a few would
probably not notice at all, that some Gentoo developers have started
removing the libtool archive files from packages that they maintain;
these changes have some times been applied to stable ebuilds as well,
but in all cases they won't be applied unless the package is re-emerged.

Removing .la files can cause, though, temporary disruption in the build
processes of libraries depending on those involved, because of the
transitive nature of .la files. For instance you could experiences
something like this:

libtool: link: `/usr/lib/libdbus-1.la' is not a valid libtool archive

with libdbus-1.la being replaced by other library names. If this is the
case, _do not panic_! Nothing is irremediably broken and nothing will
have to be rebuilt!

First of all, you should install lafilefixer and let it pass through the
currently-installed system:

# emerge lafilefixer
# lafilefixer --justfixit

This will convert the references to libtool archives to the -llibname
form, which works both with and without them.

Secondly, you can avoid any future requirement for this by sanitising
the newly installed .la files; this can be done either by using the
(currently testing) Portage 2.1.9 series, or by adding the following
snippet to your /etc/portage/bashrc:

post_src_install() {
lafilefixer "${D}"
}

It's a one time process that _will_ save you from more breakage and work
to do in the future, so please bear with us.

We'll be looking forward to make this more widely available knowledge
and we hope to be able to provide a better experience for all of you at
the end of this (bumpy) journey.

For more informations please see post [1] to gentoo-user mailing list
that contain more detailed description.

[1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/msg_b144a138af822433344f6064e2fa9c66.xml
 
Old 10-01-2010, 11:49 AM
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

On 10/1/10 12:27 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Some of you might have noticed, others might notice, a few would
> probably not notice at all

Is this an appropriate language for a user-targeted announcement? Let's
just say what we want to say, and don't try to be "funny".

> First of all, you should install lafilefixer and let it pass through the
> currently-installed system:
>
> # emerge lafilefixer
> # lafilefixer --justfixit
>
> This will convert the references to libtool archives to the -llibname
> form, which works both with and without them.

Can we move this section closer to the beginning of the message, so that
more impatient people will actually read it?
 
Old 10-01-2010, 01:31 PM
Peter Volkov
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

В Птн, 01/10/2010 в 12:27 +0200, Tomáš Chvátal пишет:
> this can be done either by using the
> (currently testing) Portage 2.1.9 series, or by adding the following
> snippet to your /etc/portage/bashrc:
>
> post_src_install() {
> lafilefixer "${D}"
> }

It's better to avoid suggesting this as such things tend to stay for a
very long time on user's systems and since this'll became redundant once
portage 2.1.9 will go stable soon it'll la files will be "fixed" twice
for no reason.

--
Peter.
 
Old 10-01-2010, 03:04 PM
Diego Elio Pettenò
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 17.31 +0400, Peter Volkov ha scritto:
>
> It's better to avoid suggesting this as such things tend to stay for a
> very long time on user's systems and since this'll became redundant
> once
> portage 2.1.9 will go stable soon it'll la files will be "fixed" twice
> for no reason.

It won't hurt anyway, and it'll definitely avoid people having to re-run
lafilefixer manually from time to time.

--
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/
 
Old 10-01-2010, 03:13 PM
Nirbheek Chauhan
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

2010/10/1 Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@gentoo.org>:
> Hi lads,
> due to recent situation about .la files status we would like to inform
> users about this situation. See attached file that we propose to be
> included as news item.
>
> Step 2 will be finding global policy how to get rid of them as fast as
> possible *without too much more hassle for our users
>

Does lafilefixer fix binpkgs now? As well as the vdb manifests for the
files? If it doesn't, I strongly object to having it as an official
recommendation. A surprisingly large no. of people (at least on
bugzilla) have FEATURES=buildpkg .

--
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
 
Old 10-01-2010, 03:33 PM
Zac Medico
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

On 10/01/2010 08:13 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> Does lafilefixer fix binpkgs now? As well as the vdb manifests for the
> files? If it doesn't, I strongly object to having it as an official
> recommendation. A surprisingly large no. of people (at least on
> bugzilla) have FEATURES=buildpkg .

It works if you run it on $D in post_src_install like the news item
recommends. The binary package is created from $D after that.
--
Thanks,
Zac
 
Old 10-01-2010, 03:42 PM
Eray Aslan
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 05:04:15PM +0200, Diego Elio Petten wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 17.31 +0400, Peter Volkov ha scritto:
> > It's better to avoid suggesting this as such things tend to stay for a
> > very long time on user's systems and since this'll became redundant
> > once
> > portage 2.1.9 will go stable soon it'll la files will be "fixed" twice
> > for no reason.
>
> It won't hurt anyway, and it'll definitely avoid people having to re-run
> lafilefixer manually from time to time.

Stabilize 2.1.9 and get rid of the post_src_install() stuff alltogether in
the news item? A distro should not ask its users to fiddle with package
management software lightly.

Besides, if it is such a good idea -and it is- it should be part of
portage.

Why not push for stabilization of 2.1.9 and then do the news item? Am I
missing something?

--
Eray
 
Old 10-01-2010, 03:43 PM
Nirbheek Chauhan
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 10/01/2010 08:13 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> Does lafilefixer fix binpkgs now? As well as the vdb manifests for the
>> files? If it doesn't, I strongly object to having it as an official
>> recommendation. A surprisingly large no. of people (at least on
>> bugzilla) have FEATURES=buildpkg .
>
> It works if you run it on $D in post_src_install like the news item
> recommends. The binary package is created from $D after that.
>

I'm talking about the first part which says the following:

Quote:
First of all, you should install lafilefixer and let it pass through the
currently-installed system:

# emerge lafilefixer
# lafilefixer --justfixit
--
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
 
Old 10-01-2010, 05:54 PM
Diego Elio Pettenò
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 20.43 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto:
>
> Does lafilefixer fix binpkgs now? As well as the vdb manifests for the
> files? If it doesn't, I strongly object to having it as an official
> recommendation. A surprisingly large no. of people (at least on
> bugzilla) have FEATURES=buildpkg .

And usually (even if not always) have one system where they build and
one system where they install. The one where they install only, and not
build, will do nothing with .la files, so fixed or not doesn't make any
difference.

The other, if they install back a built package might require another
run of it, I don't think it makes much difference though to them —
beside making you feel righteous at dragging your feet. Nice try.

--
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/
 
Old 10-01-2010, 06:02 PM
Diego Elio Pettenò
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 18.42 +0300, Eray Aslan ha scritto:
>
> Why not push for stabilization of 2.1.9 and then do the news item? Am
> I
> missing something?

Yah, the bickering of some people at having .la files disappear under
their feet, probably because they are affectionate to them, or force
them to consider dong a bit more cleanup work.

But since the suggestions are already useful, I guess it would be a
decent time to tell users about them; I have suggested doing so for a
very long time already; it worked for all the people whom I know have
been using it, it worked for me; heck it even avoided the tinderbox to
stop when automagic dependencies over selinux where passing down.

But it's trying to solve a problem that is at least three years old;
it's a suggestion I made more over an year ago; and that people shot
down many many times.

Sincerely, the naysayers on the .la matter have already broken enough
systems by not allowing .la files to die earlier, and now they are
pretending that there is no problem in waiting another X years in
"planning" a conversion that for what they are concerned is never going
to happen.

So basically, this is my token: we can tell users to do it this way and
they won't feel pain at all; or we can't tell them, and when maintainers
get pissed off by .la files enough they delete them, leaving users to
Google their solution.

I, sincerely, have poured enough effort in trying to solve the issue,
discussing it, documenting it, showing how to deal with new packages,
showing how to identify pointless .la files that only increase the
number of them installed and cause false positives… and I'm still told
that a) I haven't done _enough_, as I had to prepare a master plan of it
and b) I'm too negative about stuff.

--
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:08 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org