From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18399 invoked by alias); 3 Aug 2016 15:58:53 -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 18386 invoked by uid 89); 3 Aug 2016 15:58:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:cygwin, mass, H*Ad:U*yselkowitz, HX-Envelope-From:sk:yselkow X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 15:58:43 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E26F2201E9 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 15:58:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.10.116.47] (ovpn-116-47.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.116.47]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u73FweME007653 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 11:58:41 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC] Removing .la files from x86 To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com References: <20160803080043.GA7388@calimero.vinschen.de> <062647ee-734c-d868-589b-a5d32c6d4515@gmail.com> From: Yaakov Selkowitz Message-ID: <23ce439c-0cac-d47a-2b76-7ed66c151cd4@cygwin.com> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 15:58:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <062647ee-734c-d868-589b-a5d32c6d4515@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-08/txt/msg00028.txt.bz2 On 2016-08-03 04:18, Marco Atzeri wrote: > On 03/08/2016 10:00, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Aug 2 22:09, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: >>> Any objections? >> >> User confusion about incomplete packages? That is my concern, although we are generally dealing with -devel packages here. AFAICS the only way to work around that is to make the script much more complicated (and hence slower). >> 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? The problem with that approach is that it would have to be done in a top-down order, otherwise builds of other packages would break. For example, libFLAC.la (from flac-devel) requires libogg.la (from libogg-devel). If libogg.la is removed by rebuilding libogg with a new cygport but libFLAC.la is not, then any libtool-based packages which link with -lFLAC will fail because of the missing libogg.la mentioned therein. Hence, the only way not to break things once they're there is to either remove them from the top-down (mass rebuild), or all at once (a perpetual postinstall). > Please note we have still some *.la files on x86_64 > for other reasons and we can not run an indiscriminate prune > on x86. I know. :-) The modules that are kept on x86_64 would be left alone by the script. -- Yaakov