From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25771 invoked by alias); 3 Aug 2016 04:16:55 -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 25759 invoked by uid 89); 3 Aug 2016 04:16:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=chase, yselkowitzcygwincom, yselkowitz@cygwin.com, consult X-HELO: etr-usa.com Received: from etr-usa.com (HELO etr-usa.com) (130.94.180.135) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 04:16:44 +0000 Received: (qmail 72566 invoked by uid 13447); 3 Aug 2016 04:16:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO polypore.west.etr-usa.com) ([73.26.17.49]) (envelope-sender ) by 130.94.180.135 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 3 Aug 2016 04:16:42 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: [RFC] Removing .la files from x86 From: Warren Young In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 04:16:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <79640297-2DB1-4BC2-AAF7-600D8FAEB02D@etr-usa.com> References: To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-08/txt/msg00021.txt.bz2 On Aug 2, 2016, at 9:09 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: >=20 > Any objections? This script would need to consult the same package database cygcheck uses t= o find out if an installed Cygwin package owns each *.la file it proposes t= o remove. It should not remove any other *.la file just because it happens= to be in /usr/lib. It should not remove anything in other common libdirs like /usr/local/lib. = If I=E2=80=99ve installed something from source and its make install rule = installs the *.la file, that=E2=80=99s an issue for the upstream provider. Doesn=E2=80=99t libtool provide some of the magic library dependency chasin= g that exists on Linux but almost nowhere else? That is, if library B depends on library C, and library A depends on B, on = Linux you generally only need to explicitly link to library A, and the link= er will chase down B and C for you. This doesn=E2=80=99t usually happen on= other systems, so you may have to explicitly link to library B, and someti= mes to library C as well. A common practical example is that libpng depends on zlib, but it is suffic= ient on Linux to link only with -lpng, whereas porting such software to non= -Linux systems generally requires appending -lz. Would we still have that behavior on Windows without the .la files? If not= , it=E2=80=99s possible that some build systems would break.