On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Allan McRae wrote:

Allan McRae wrote:

...

Eric Belanger wrote:

...

Although the '!libtool' option is used, there is a libtool file in the package: lib/libhandle.la I'm guessing that makepkg doesn't search /lib for libtool files so it needs to be manually removed. Of course, I assume that it's not needed.

That is actually a dangling symlink to the actual libtool file which was removed. Sending to pacman-dev so this can be fixed.

if [ "$(check_option libtool)" = "n" ]; then msg2 "$(gettext "Removing libtool .la files...")" find . -type f -name "*.la" -exec rm -f -- '{}' \; fi

Can we just remove "-type f" from the find statement? I haven't come up with a problem in my two minutes of thought on the issue...

Maybe just to be sure, add a '! -type d' clause in its place? -Dan

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Allan McRae wrote:

Dan McGee wrote:

...

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Allan McRae wrote:

...

Allan McRae wrote:

...

Eric Belanger wrote:

...

Although the '!libtool' option is used, there is a libtool file in the package: lib/libhandle.la I'm guessing that makepkg doesn't search /lib for libtool files so it needs to be manually removed. Of course, I assume that it's not needed.

That is actually a dangling symlink to the actual libtool file which was removed. Sending to pacman-dev so this can be fixed.

if [ "$(check_option libtool)" = "n" ]; then msg2 "$(gettext "Removing libtool .la files...")" find . -type f -name "*.la" -exec rm -f -- '{}' \; fi

Can we just remove "-type f" from the find statement? I haven't come up with a problem in my two minutes of thought on the issue...

Maybe just to be sure, add a '! -type d' clause in its place?

Fair enough because a directory would cause the rm to fail. Although I will personally hunt down the first software author whose install makes a directory named in the form foo.la! :)

Do we care about the case where the symlink foo.la points to a directory or a non-libtool file? I vote to ignore it until someone comes up with a real world example...

Fine with me, I don't care about that case either until we have a real counterexample. If you want to make the trivial patch for this issue, that would be nice. And now that you are a developer Allan, it would be cool if you could push your git tree somewhere even if it doesn't have a gitweb attached. I can show you how to do this if you want on the Arch server. -Dan