[csw-maintainers] [csw-buildfarm] FYI: Temporarily deactivation .la-files

[Chad Harp]

Several of those packages don't have maintainers.  By leaving them there
we're deciding not to build new packages that have a broken libtool
dependencies.

i.e.

Old package that no longer has a maintainer has an [a.la] file that
references another [b.la] file.  But b.la is gone now because the
maintainer of that package is stripping .la files when he packages.  Now
packages that depend on a.so will not build because libtool wants to see
b.la.

We need a global policy on libtool files.  We should either remove them
all allowing them only by exception or chose to keep them.  Right now
the build farm is in a state where I cannot build most of my packages
because old .la files reference .la files that have been removed in
newer builds by package maintainers.

Cleaning this up is probably going to be painful, maybe someone has some
libtool magic to make it build around these situations?

Eric J Korpela wrote:
> In some cases I'm having the opposite problem because of missing
> dependencies that were supposed to be in the .la files of packages
> where the .la files were not installed.
> 
> Shouldn't problems in .la files be reported as bugs to the package
> maintainers?  If a package includes them it's up the the maintainers
> to see that they are correct, no?
> 
> Eric
> 
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Hi Chad,
>>
>> Am 22.01.2009 um 17:39 schrieb Chad Harp:
>>> Dagobert Michelsen wrote:
>>>> I have currently serious trouble with .la-files and have therefore
>>>> temporarily renamed all files from
>>>>   /opt/csw/lib/*.la
>>>> to
>>>>   /opt/csw/lib/*.la.moved
>>>> on build8s only (!). I'll undo the changes after my tests.
>>>>
>>>> Please be aware and let me know if you encounter anything.
>>>>
>>> Is there a reason we shouldn't leave it that way (and replicate the
>>> change on the rest of the build env)?
>>>
>>> I've been having a similar problem and have been delaying some updates
>>> until the .la problem gets resolved.  I understand that in some cases
>>> the .la files are required, but we could deal with those on an
>>> exception
>>> basis.
>> I guess that would be best. That way we don't pollute new packages.
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>>   -- Dago
>> _______________________________________________
>> maintainers mailing list
>> maintainers at lists.opencsw.org
>> https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
>>