On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 3:41 PM Mike Gilbert <flop...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 5:10 PM Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2019-03-02 at 16:59 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 1:37 AM Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 07:20 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Matt Turner wrote:
> > > > > > > # Don't install libtool archives (even for modules)
> > > > > > > - prune_libtool_files --all
> > > > > > > + find "${D}" -name '*.la' -delete || die
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe restrict removal to regular files, i.e. add "-type f"?
> > > > > I suppose you should have spoken up when people started adopting that
> > > > > 'find' line all over the place. Though I honestly doubt we're going
> > > > > to see many packages installing '*.la' non-files.
> > > >
> > > > I have updated the example in ltprune.eclass now.
> > > >
> > > > That still won't catch regular non-libtool files, but people needing
> > > > additional sanity checks can still use the eclass.
> > >
> > > Perhaps we should un-ban the ltprune eclass for EAPI 7?
> > >
> > > It seems like it would still be useful to have a way of detecting
> > > libtool-archives instead of removing any file that ends with ".la".
> > >
> >
> > How many valid cases for this are there? For comparison, how many
> > useless complexity will be added to ebuilds by thoughtless maintainers
> > using the first thing that seems to work without actually verifying
> > whether it is necessary?
>
> As a maintainer, any time spent worrying about .la files is wasted
> time. We have code that can figure it out automatically and allow me
> to stop wasting brain power.
Exactly.
