On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 12:05 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> Yeah, I dunno...maybe someone needs to fork libtool.
I should follow up to this; the thing is, libtool is at the intersection
of so many cross-cutting issues:
* RPM-style multilib vs Debian-style multiarch
* Supporting libraries that use
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 16:47 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> The thing which really worries me about this is that we'll start to
> deviate quite massively with how upstream expect us to use autotools.
I just consider upstream wrong, and so do others:
http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/LAFileRemova
On 18 June 2013 16:54, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 16:47 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> We might as well throw away libtool
>
> That sounds like an excellent plan to me. I wonder how hard it would be
> to invent a libtool-dummy script which took the same arguments but
> basicall
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 16:47 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> We might as well throw away libtool
That sounds like an excellent plan to me. I wonder how hard it would be
to invent a libtool-dummy script which took the same arguments but
basically just invoked the compiler and linker without any of t
On 18 June 2013 16:47, Richard Purdie
wrote:
> So I don't see the pressing need to set us off down a path on our own.
> Yes the .la files are annoying but they're not that much of a problem,
> are they?
Whilst the separate build directory work is a massive improvement,
there's plenty of packages
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 16:05 +0100, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 18 June 2013 16:00, Colin Walters wrote:
> > The relevant data I have on hand are:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=654013
> > https://git.gnome.org/browse/jhbuild/commit/?id=965c8d5ceda9d1c5d6021ef2c534e0a7f68ca976
> >
On 18 June 2013 16:00, Colin Walters wrote:
> The relevant data I have on hand are:
>
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=654013
> https://git.gnome.org/browse/jhbuild/commit/?id=965c8d5ceda9d1c5d6021ef2c534e0a7f68ca976
>
> I think the executive summary is that libltdl knows how to load .
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 15:56 +0100, Burton, Ross wrote:
> I also remember discussion with Colin Walters about ostree, which at
> one point only removed from $libdir itself (my "libdir" argument) but
> now removes all .la files. Colin, the commit that changed the la
> killing to recurse didn't have
On 18 June 2013 15:42, Phil Blundell wrote:
> FWIW, I still have the patch from:
>
> http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2012-October/069912.html
>
> in my local tree and it seems to be working fine (although I don't have
> any particular interest in libltdt so it's conceivab
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 15:31 +0100, Burton, Ross wrote:
> My proposal is that we integrate .la-removal into a core class.
> autotools.bbclass should cover 99% of instances as libtool is normally
> used in conjunction with auto*. Have a variable, REMOVE_LIBTOOL_LA,
> which controls the behaviour pos
Hi,
Looking at another recipe that deletes .la files reminded me that
every six months or so I look at this and never actually get anything
done. Let's try attempt three!
My proposal is that we integrate .la-removal into a core class.
autotools.bbclass should cover 99% of instances as libtool is
11 matches
Mail list logo
