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 04-19-2008, 06:50 PM
"Wulf C. Krueger"
 
Default Removing .la files...

Hello!

I think flameeyes should have sent this himself in the first place, but
since he's clearly not going to do that and prefers to just force it on
our users I'm mailing this...

flameeyes talked about .la files in his blog recently:

http://blog.flameeyes.eu/articles/2008/04/14/what-about-those-la-files

Now he decided that simply removing them for several packages, resulting
in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218286 and its dupes.

This is annoying for quite a few users as they will have to rebuild lots
of stuff for KDE, Gnome and other packages and I'm not sure if this is
really the way we want to fix --as-needed failures.

Furthermore, such things should not be decided and pushed through
unilaterally but be agreed upon here prior to doing this change.

Especially since even though removing .la files might make sense (with
exceptions, of course) we should think about either doing it
distribution-wide or not at all.

--
Best regards, Wulf
 
Old 04-19-2008, 07:50 PM
Alistair Bush
 
Default Removing .la files...

Wulf C. Krueger wrote:

Hello!

I think flameeyes should have sent this himself in the first place, but
since he's clearly not going to do that and prefers to just force it on
our users I'm mailing this...




Have we not learn't! I hardly think that revdep-rebuild is an obvious
solution to this issue. So now we have doomed our users ( and some of
our dev's ) to having to search for a solution. I note that within the
ebuild there isn't even a elog explaining what to do. If we are going
to make changes like this we need to provide an effective "news service".


I'm sure this was one of the issues that arose during the "hot house
months".


I actually find this incident rather depressing. especially after we
(seem to) have done so well with the baselayout/openrc migration. ( I do
realise that one is significantly bigger than the other and therefore
requires a bigger "fan fair" ).



flameeyes talked about .la files in his blog recently:

http://blog.flameeyes.eu/articles/2008/04/14/what-about-those-la-files


Im sure everyone will find that



Now he decided that simply removing them for several packages, resulting
in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218286 and its dupes.




What a surprise. never could have guessed.

This is annoying for quite a few users as they will have to rebuild lots
of stuff for KDE, Gnome and other packages and I'm not sure if this is
really the way we want to fix --as-needed failures.


++. We sure do like to annoy our users.



Furthermore, such things should not be decided and pushed through
unilaterally but be agreed upon here prior to doing this change.



++. I actually have no problem with agreeing with it, currently my
problem is the complete and utter lack of any _planned_ upgrade path.
What do we think users are going to be saying at the end of the year
when after every sync they have to revdep-rebuild. Maybe, if we proceed
with this, we investigate what can have its la files removed and do it
all in one go. therefore ppl won't have to rebuild kde/gnome ( or any
other large and time consuming package) over and over and over and over
and over and over ....... again. Hell it would even be better to
"batch" a few conversions so that each revdep-rebuild fixes multiple
breakages in one.


Especially since even though removing .la files might make sense (with
exceptions, of course) we should think about either doing it
distribution-wide or not at all.



++++++

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-19-2008, 07:51 PM
Luca Barbato
 
Default Removing .la files...

Wulf C. Krueger wrote:

Hello!

I think flameeyes should have sent this himself in the first place, but
since he's clearly not going to do that and prefers to just force it on
our users I'm mailing this...


flameeyes talked about .la files in his blog recently:

http://blog.flameeyes.eu/articles/2008/04/14/what-about-those-la-files

Now he decided that simply removing them for several packages, resulting
in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218286 and its dupes.


This is annoying for quite a few users as they will have to rebuild lots
of stuff for KDE, Gnome and other packages and I'm not sure if this is
really the way we want to fix --as-needed failures.


That or just remove the other .la.

Furthermore, such things should not be decided and pushed through
unilaterally but be agreed upon here prior to doing this change.


Agreed, even if it is relatively low profile IMHO.

Especially since even though removing .la files might make sense (with
exceptions, of course) we should think about either doing it
distribution-wide or not at all.


I'll put as item for the council meeting if we don't reach consensus before.

In the other news I advise to start asking library upstreams to provide
pkgconfig files (and/or push patches providing that).


lu

--

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-19-2008, 07:53 PM
Luca Barbato
 
Default Removing .la files...

Alistair Bush wrote:
++. I actually have no problem with agreeing with it, currently my
problem is the complete and utter lack of any _planned_ upgrade path.
What do we think users are going to be saying at the end of the year
when after every sync they have to revdep-rebuild. Maybe, if we proceed
with this, we investigate what can have its la files removed and do it
all in one go. therefore ppl won't have to rebuild kde/gnome ( or any
other large and time consuming package) over and over and over and over
and over and over ....... again. Hell it would even be better to
"batch" a few conversions so that each revdep-rebuild fixes multiple
breakages in one.


Call that an experiment, do not start screaming but just try to help a bit.

I think we could have those change masked now and unmasked once we got
something sorted better.


lu

--

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-19-2008, 07:57 PM
Petteri Räty
 
Default Removing .la files...

Luca Barbato kirjoitti:

Alistair Bush wrote:
++. I actually have no problem with agreeing with it, currently my
problem is the complete and utter lack of any _planned_ upgrade path.
What do we think users are going to be saying at the end of the year
when after every sync they have to revdep-rebuild. Maybe, if we
proceed with this, we investigate what can have its la files removed
and do it all in one go. therefore ppl won't have to rebuild
kde/gnome ( or any other large and time consuming package) over and
over and over and over and over and over ....... again. Hell it would
even be better to "batch" a few conversions so that each
revdep-rebuild fixes multiple breakages in one.


Call that an experiment, do not start screaming but just try to help a bit.

I think we could have those change masked now and unmasked once we got
something sorted better.


lu



And remember folks that if you don't want to deal with regular breaks,
you should not be using ~arch.


Regards,
Petteri
 
Old 04-19-2008, 08:18 PM
 
Default Removing .la files...

As those who _did_ ask me directly why I decided to do this did not
think it was worth mailing - as they didn't - I suppose I should chime
in now.

Leaving alone what Petteri already said, this was intended to be a
change on a series of single packages, the domino effect that happened I
didn't foresee, on my system it was just a matter of five packages and a
quick look at the revdeps didn't show _such_ an effect. Well maybe I
expected a few problems with libogg, but yeah that doesn't seem to be
the problem here, the problem seems to be with popt. For what popt is
used (parsing of command-line options) I didn't expect it to creep in in
so many libraries.

And as the problem does not break any system - systems will still run
perfectly - and can be solved with ease - just run a revdep-rebuild - I
did consider this a pretty minor drawback on the whole.

libogg and popt are now masked, and they'll wait a bit before return to
~arch that way. libmpcdec, libmad have very few library users so I don't
expect major problems with those and I left them untouched. Same for
libpam which should really _not_ be used by libraries beside a few very
rare cases, if it was there is something _very_ broken.

Probably the best thing would be to get a better tool than
revdep-rebuild to handle broken .la files, as revdep-rebuild forces a
timewasting rebuild, while a good fix could be just a sed -i -e
's:/usr/lib(64)?/lib(.*).la:-l2:' on all the .la files, installed
and being-installed.

By the way, asking a question is not poisonous.


"Wulf C. Krueger" <philantrop@gentoo.org> writes:

> Especially since even though removing .la files might make sense (with
> exceptions, of course) we should think about either doing it
> distribution-wide or not at all.

Can't be done distribution-wide, as stuff would break way worse than
this for sure (stuff is not going to link, or will fail at runtime). You
_have_ to do it on a case-by-case basis.

--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
 
Old 04-19-2008, 08:25 PM
Petteri Räty
 
Default Removing .la files...

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò kirjoitti:


Probably the best thing would be to get a better tool than
revdep-rebuild to handle broken .la files, as revdep-rebuild forces a
timewasting rebuild, while a good fix could be just a sed -i -e
's:/usr/lib(64)?/lib(.*).la:-l2:' on all the .la files, installed
and being-installed.



You would have to fix the vdb too.

Regards,
Petteri
 
Old 04-19-2008, 08:28 PM
 
Default Removing .la files...

Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> writes:

> You would have to fix the vdb too.

Which is the tricky part, and the reason why I didn't instruct anybody
to do the sed on my ChangeLogs.p

--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-19-2008, 08:33 PM
"Wulf C. Krueger"
 
Default Removing .la files...

> By the way, asking a question is not poisonous.

Absolutely. Asking about it here was my suggestion.

--
Best regards, Wulf
 
Old 04-19-2008, 10:03 PM
Mike Frysinger
 
Default Removing .la files...

On Saturday 19 April 2008, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> > By the way, asking a question is not poisonous.
>
> Absolutely. Asking about it here was my suggestion.

his point was you should have asked him directly instead of starting a thread
on a mailing list to talk about him. doesnt seem terribly unreasonable.
-mike
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:41 PM.

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