prune_libtool_files: run pkg-config code only if necessary.
 

Right now, the .pc file parsing takes place each time
prune_libtool_files() is called, even when there are no .la files
installed. After this commit, the .pc files will be parsed only when
it is necessary, i.e. no other criteria allow removal of a particular
.la file.
---
gx86/eclass/eutils.eclass | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gx86/eclass/eutils.eclass b/gx86/eclass/eutils.eclass
index 1017243..c4cf3c9 100644
--- a/gx86/eclass/eutils.eclass
+++ b/gx86/eclass/eutils.eclass
@@ -1436,25 +1436,6 @@ prune_libtool_files() {
esac
done

- # Create a list of all .pc-covered libs.
- local pc_libs=()
- if [[ ! ${removing_all} ]]; then
- local f
- local tf=${T}/prune-lt-files.pc
- local pkgconf=$(tc-getPKG_CONFIG)
-
- while IFS= read -r -d ' f; do # for all .pc files
- local arg
-
- sed -e '/^Requires:/d' "${f}" > "${tf}"
- for arg in $("${pkgconf}" --libs "${tf}"); do
- [[ ${arg} == -l* ]] && pc_libs+=( lib${arg#-l}.la )
- done
- done < <(find "${D}" -type f -name '*.pc' -print0)
-
- rm -f "${tf}"
- fi
-
local f
while IFS= read -r -d ' f; do # for all .la files
local archivefile=${f/%.la/.a}
@@ -1478,17 +1459,40 @@ prune_libtool_files() {
# - respective static archive doesn't exist,
# - they are covered by a .pc file already,
# - they don't provide any new information (no libs & no flags).
- local reason
+ local reason pkgconfig_scanned
if [[ ${removing_all} ]]; then
reason='requested'
elif [[ ! -f ${archivefile} ]]; then
reason='no static archive'
- elif has "${f##*/}" "${pc_libs[@]}"; then
- reason='covered by .pc'
elif [[ ! $(sed -nre
"s/^(dependency_libs|inherited_linker_flags)='(.*)'$/2/p"
"${f}") ]]; then
reason='no libs & flags'
+ else
+ if [[ ! ${pkgconfig_scanned} ]]; then
+ # Create a list of all .pc-covered libs.
+ local pc_libs=()
+ if [[ ! ${removing_all} ]]; then
+ local f
+ local tf=${T}/prune-lt-files.pc
+ local pkgconf=$(tc-getPKG_CONFIG)
+
+ while IFS= read -r -d ' f; do # for all .pc files
+ local arg
+
+ sed -e '/^Requires:/d' "${f}" > "${tf}"
+ for arg in $("${pkgconf}" --libs "${tf}"); do
+ [[ ${arg} == -l* ]] && pc_libs+=( lib${arg#-l}.la )
+ done
+ done < <(find "${D}" -type f -name '*.pc' -print0)
+
+ rm -f "${tf}"
+ fi
+
+ pkgconfig_scanned=1
+ fi
+
+ has "${f##*/}" "${pc_libs[@]}" && reason='covered by .pc'
fi

if [[ ${reason} ]]; then
--
1.7.12

prune_libtool_files: run pkg-config code only if necessary.
 

On 25/08/2012 12:32, Michał Górny wrote:
> + local pkgconf=$(tc-getPKG_CONFIG)

I'd say you should add a warning before using this if the virtual is not
in DEPEND. And don't assume transitive dependencies (they are never nice).

You can take a peek to ruby-ng_rspec to have an idea how to implement
that kind of warning.

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

prune_libtool_files: run pkg-config code only if necessary.
 

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 12:58:19 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@flameeyes.eu> wrote:

> On 25/08/2012 12:32, Michał Górny wrote:
> > + local
> > pkgconf=$(tc-getPKG_CONFIG)
>
> I'd say you should add a warning before using this if the virtual is
> not in DEPEND. And don't assume transitive dependencies (they are
> never nice).
>
> You can take a peek to ruby-ng_rspec to have an idea how to implement
> that kind of warning.

That's not PMS-compliant, sir.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny

prune_libtool_files: run pkg-config code only if necessary.
 

On 25/08/2012 13:09, Michał Górny wrote:
> That's not PMS-compliant, sir.

But it's terribly useful. (I have expressed before my contempt for PMS,
I'm sure.)

I'm not expecting the ebuild to die, just to send a warning so that the
developer knows when they fail to meet non-obvious requirements.

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

prune_libtool_files: run pkg-config code only if necessary.
 

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 13:10:05 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@flameeyes.eu> wrote:
> On 25/08/2012 13:09, Michał Górny wrote:
> > That's not PMS-compliant, sir.
>
> But it's terribly useful. (I have expressed before my contempt for
> PMS, I'm sure.)

Didn't you get upset when it was Mike who was ignoring everyone else and
just doing whatever he wanted regardless of the consequences?

--
Ciaran McCreesh