From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 108980 invoked by alias); 3 Aug 2016 08:00:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 108303 invoked by uid 89); 3 Aug 2016 08:00:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-94.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GOOD_FROM_CORINNA_CYGWIN,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT,RCVD_IN_PBL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: calimero.vinschen.de Received: from ipbcc0190b.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de (HELO calimero.vinschen.de) (188.192.25.11) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 08:00:45 +0000 Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id AC496A80CC8; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 10:00:43 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 08:00:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Removing .la files from x86 Message-ID: <20160803080043.GA7388@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gKMricLos+KVdGMg" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) X-SW-Source: 2016-08/txt/msg00023.txt.bz2 --gKMricLos+KVdGMg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 1420 On Aug 2 22:09, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > Libtool .la files are generally a waste of time and space. They slow down > linking of other libraries with libtool, and they cause otherwise > unnecessary private dependencies to be pulled in by -devel packages. > Therefore, the major distros generally remove them from their packages > unless they are really necessary. >=20 > When we first enabled Cygwin for x86_64, as we had no backwards > compatibility to worry about, I made removing all .la files the default. > AFAIK this has worked well, and any missing link libraries that the prese= nce > thereof would have masked have already been fixed. >=20 > In order to do the same for x86 without breaking builds of other packages, > AFAICS we would need a perpetual postinstall script which will continually > remove them. The downside is that (unless the script is made a *LOT* more > complicated) a number of -devel packages will show up as "Incomplete" unt= il > such time they are rebuilt with a new version of cygport. >=20 > Any objections? User confusion about incomplete packages? What I wonder is, if cygport builds don't create/install .la files anymore, don't we end up without them at one point anyway? Isn't it sufficient if they go away over time? Corinna --=20 Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat --gKMricLos+KVdGMg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-length: 819 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXoaSrAAoJEPU2Bp2uRE+grnsQAICdx/QPC/jwW+1VWKlUgIFn ip8IJuM/wpRL1C4GjcOwsKAR5F4i3X0NwyhWueBj8c3m3DDaYmAXbqLCw5GEYoOV zZMbTyy1DBVGGGqyjaQ46HlZdvS9RVI2rDbWbyti4foCu84KqxQxFVBfovO7QusV g2MJVboI8pz+3rDGVpYp8Z5za6ND1356mPTd6FR/kyAmRQfhv+bY9umzp11kHrzT 1MgpGibFROb4cN8L2ECIyMwR6XYOx6p+ohPYRR0rMxOYuXBazJJYk0hw9z8u83g9 FMfRT2wdXTT7oWK8Yu3dYttTIX81SQ59EOPuVP5sde6us2SbeG7tYPRbUiLEIXsh m6WctKVkNnqRW32klbV3zX+8Un6PaQuC/qBrBv43Dv2xQCQf2AFrxpliQ0/dzyxz Xas2XDhkZb00KvK97IToOlalf1yWHpbYKAh1zN9UWG4WOiIqUfaFa6ilamiO8x1V xQkSwNYqzZ2Z1vwD9ho2+cUo38ROfvz3j+O7DG7LU/YOl8JFDDBUupDwAbtuldwh LkLxy7mNiAcpL6U5v0B1tNWUot1OlnuRcYy/0OPM9j4XmN8cKrgd/QpnKf0b1c3G isVLMr6WvnLbWQP3iqZ24ZXUx4DlZPIMl1FyMcNoIAiAtyfMAIk9LZv4JHJZwvOk CfigsA5NxKgwRN5Mt8io =Wfq3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gKMricLos+KVdGMg--