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 User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-29-2010, 10:40 PM
Diego Elio Pettenò
 
Default Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

Hi all users,

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.

The reasoning behind this removal is too long to explain in this mail,
but you can find the start of it in [1], [2], and you can find some more
details in [3], [4] (yes these are all posts from my blog that I wrote
in the past few years). What matters to you (users) is that removing .la
files makes it less likely that unexpected libraries get linked in your
executables, even without --as-needed, or where --as-needed is not
working correctly.

If it sounds familiar as a situation, you might have gone through the
now-infamous libpng14 upgrade earlier this year [5], [6].

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}"
}

(Users of the bashrcng feature can install a specific plugin to do the
job, I don't remember the name of it though, sorry!)

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.

Note: removal of .la files altogether from the system is _not_ possible
and _is_ going to break your system. This is why we've got to handle
this process with care and can't simply nuke them entirely. A few
packages (imagemagick, mpg123) actually use the .la files to load their
plugins; the libtool macros to detect libltld also rely on the presence
of $libdir/libltdl.la (even though it's not really necessary). Plus I
know of at least one package that installs data files with .la extension
even though they are not libtool archives.

Note #2: if you run revdep-rebuild before the above process, it _will_
find you a lot of packages to rebuild, and you'll waste a huge amount of
time running in circles.

At this time it is unclear what the path forward will be, if we either
keep removing .la files from packages, caring about the fact they are
not needed, and causing these disruption for who hasn't gone through the
above-noted process yet, or if we'll be doing a mass-removal and deal
separately with eventual breakage on packages that use them, like those
noted above. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages and it's
mostly a matter of opinion and taste which one is "better".

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.

Thanks!

[1] http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2008/04/14/what-about-those-la-files
[2] http://blog.flameeyes.eu/s/lafiles-2
[3] http://blog.flameeyes.eu/s/lafiles-plugins
[4] http://blog.flameeyes.eu/s/lafiles-chart
[5] http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2010/05/12/gentoo-failed-us-again
[6] http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2010/06/29/stable-users-libpng-update

--
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 09-30-2010, 12:14 AM
walt
 
Default Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

On 09/29/2010 03:40 PM, Diego Elio Petten wrote:

Hi all users,
we hope to be able to provide a better experience for all of you at
the end of this (bumpy) journey.

Thanks!


On behalf of the Geriatric Gentoo Users Group I say, "No, please, allow us to
thank YOU for all the great work you do for gentoo!"

Maintaining high quality is always an uphill battle, and those of us in the GGUG
know and appreciate how much work you do on our behalf. So, once again, thanks
from the old farts!

Alan, Volker, Dale -- anything to add?
 
Old 09-30-2010, 12:45 AM
Dale
 
Default Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

walt wrote:

On 09/29/2010 03:40 PM, Diego Elio Petten wrote:

Hi all users,
we hope to be able to provide a better experience for all of you at
the end of this (bumpy) journey.

Thanks!


On behalf of the Geriatric Gentoo Users Group I say, "No, please,
allow us to

thank YOU for all the great work you do for gentoo!"

Maintaining high quality is always an uphill battle, and those of us
in the GGUG
know and appreciate how much work you do on our behalf. So, once
again, thanks

from the old farts!

Alan, Volker, Dale -- anything to add?



+1 If I could reproduce, I would say +2. Alas there is only one of
me. Stop clapping and jumping up and down in your seat. ;-)


As least we know this is coming. I just wonder why there wasn't
something added to portage to fix this? Maybe that wasn't doable. If a
person was to download a new stage3 and do a fresh install, would that
put a end to this problem? In other words, does this affect new
installs the same as old installs?


Dale

:-) :-)
 
Old 09-30-2010, 04:51 AM
Volker Armin Hemmann
 
Default Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

On Thursday 30 September 2010, walt wrote:
> On 09/29/2010 03:40 PM, Diego Elio Petten wrote:
> > Hi all users,
> >
> > we hope to be able to provide a better experience for all of you at
> >
> > the end of this (bumpy) journey.
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> On behalf of the Geriatric Gentoo Users Group I say, "No, please, allow us
> to thank YOU for all the great work you do for gentoo!"
>
> Maintaining high quality is always an uphill battle, and those of us in the
> GGUG know and appreciate how much work you do on our behalf. So, once
> again, thanks from the old farts!
>
> Alan, Volker, Dale -- anything to add?

thank you Diego for informing us about the upcoming fun. I am sure a lot of
people will not read your mail and will complain about random breakage later.

As always.

 
Old 09-30-2010, 05:40 AM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

Alan is relaxing by the seaside watching the waves go in and out. So he has nothing sensible to add at this time, but maybe on Sunday :-)



> On 09/29/2010 03:40 PM, Diego Elio Petten wrote:
>> Hi all users,
>> we hope to be able to provide a better experience for all of you at
>> the end of this (bumpy) journey.

>>
>> Thanks!
>
> On behalf of the Geriatric Gentoo Users Group I say, "No, please, allow us to
> thank YOU for all the great work you do for gentoo!"
>
> Maintaining high quality is always an uphill battle, and those of us in the GGUG

> know and appreciate how much work you do on our behalf. So, once again, thanks
> from the old farts!
>
> Alan, Volker, Dale -- anything to add?
>
>
 
Old 09-30-2010, 08:53 AM
Neil Bothwick
 
Default Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:14:52 -0700, walt wrote:

> On 09/29/2010 03:40 PM, Diego Elio Petten wrote:
> > Hi all users,
> > we hope to be able to provide a better experience for all of you at
> > the end of this (bumpy) journey.
> >
> > Thanks!

It's good to have direct communication from devs, especially on something
as important as this. Thanks.

> On behalf of the Geriatric Gentoo Users Group I say, "No, please, allow
> us to thank YOU for all the great work you do for gentoo!"
>
> Maintaining high quality is always an uphill battle, and those of us in
> the GGUG know and appreciate how much work you do on our behalf. So,
> once again, thanks from the old farts!
>
> Alan, Volker, Dale -- anything to add?

Hey, how do I join GGUG?


--
Neil Bothwick

X-Modem- A device on the losing end of an encounter with lightning.
 
Old 09-30-2010, 08:55 AM
Neil Bothwick
 
Default Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:40:06 +0200, Diego Elio Petten wrote:

> 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}"
> }

I find this part a little confusing. Are you saying to add the function
to bashrc if you are not using portage 2.1.9? How about those of us using
2.2?


--
Neil Bothwick

Suborbital Ballistic-Propulsion Engineer
Not Exactly A Rocket Scientist
 
Old 09-30-2010, 11:03 AM
 
Default Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 09/29/2010 03:40 PM, Diego Elio Petten wrote:
> > Hi all users,
> > we hope to be able to provide a better experience for all of you at
> > the end of this (bumpy) journey.
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> On behalf of the Geriatric Gentoo Users Group I say, "No, please, allow us to
> thank YOU for all the great work you do for gentoo!"
>
> Maintaining high quality is always an uphill battle, and those of us in the GGUG
> know and appreciate how much work you do on our behalf. So, once again, thanks
> from the old farts!

If I am using the portage 2.2 series, do I still need that bash snipet?

--
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is:
How do
you spend it?

John Covici
covici@ccs.covici.com
 
Old 09-30-2010, 01:31 PM
Diego Elio Pettenò
 
Default Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

Il giorno gio, 30/09/2010 alle 09.55 +0100, Neil Bothwick ha scritto:
> I find this part a little confusing. Are you saying to add the
> function
> to bashrc if you are not using portage 2.1.9? How about those of us
> using
> 2.2?
>
2.2 series also got the same feature, but I don't remember since which
rc… the latest masked version is definitely fine though.

If you're running an older 2.2 or a 2.1.8 (or earlier) Portage, yes you
should be adding the function to bashrc (or upgrade to ~arch Portage if
you feel brave enough ).

--
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 09-30-2010, 01:47 PM
Peter Humphrey
 
Default Notice: possible past, present and future breakage related to .la files

On Thursday 30 September 2010 09:53:40 Neil Bothwick wrote:

> Hey, how do I join GGUG?

You're too old, Neil. Same as me.

--
Rgds
Peter. Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:24 PM.

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