Start working on removing those .la files en masse.

Start working on removing those .la files en masse.

Change-Id: I25d7eb61d968f90f03e0a2b78318093f952373b6

R=raymes
BUG=none
TEST=./make_chroot, ./setup_board, ./build_packages, ./build_image

[petkov, 2011-04-28 18:39:38]

Is this INSTALL_MASK in addition to the DEFAULT_INSTALL_MASK defined in
common.sh and used in build_image?

[Flameeyes-Gentoo, 2011-04-28 20:55:33]

Il giorno gio, 28/04/2011 alle 18.39 +0000, petkov@chromium.org ha
scritto:
> Is this INSTALL_MASK in addition to the DEFAULT_INSTALL_MASK defined in
> common.sh and used in build_image?

Hmm it should be added, but I'll doublecheck.

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

[petkov, 2011-04-28 21:08:01]

On 2011/04/28 20:55:33, Flameeyes-Gentoo wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 28/04/2011 alle 18.39 +0000, mailto:petkov@chromium.org ha
> scritto:
> > Is this INSTALL_MASK in addition to the DEFAULT_INSTALL_MASK defined in
> > common.sh and used in build_image?
> 
> Hmm it should be added, but I'll doublecheck.

I'm just confused why you need to mask all these .la files individually when
they should be masked already by the global *.la mask.

> 
> -- 
> Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
> http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

[petkov, 2011-04-28 21:08:28]

On 2011/04/28 21:08:01, petkov wrote:
> On 2011/04/28 20:55:33, Flameeyes-Gentoo wrote:
> > Il giorno gio, 28/04/2011 alle 18.39 +0000, mailto:petkov@chromium.org ha
> > scritto:
> > > Is this INSTALL_MASK in addition to the DEFAULT_INSTALL_MASK defined in
> > > common.sh and used in build_image?
> > 
> > Hmm it should be added, but I'll doublecheck.
> 
> I'm just confused why you need to mask all these .la files individually when
> they should be masked already by the global *.la mask.

... at least for the target image, I guess.

> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
> > http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

[Flameeyes-Gentoo, 2011-04-28 21:19:25]

Il giorno gio, 28/04/2011 alle 21.08 +0000, petkov@chromium.org ha
scritto:
> 
> I'm just confused why you need to mask all these .la files
> individually when
> they should be masked already by the global *.la mask.
> 
> 

Because they need to be removed during the build process or they hinder
cross-compilation.

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

[petkov, 2011-04-28 22:39:38]

On 2011/04/28 21:19:25, Flameeyes-Gentoo wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 28/04/2011 alle 21.08 +0000, mailto:petkov@chromium.org ha
> scritto:
> > 
> > I'm just confused why you need to mask all these .la files
> > individually when
> > they should be masked already by the global *.la mask.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Because they need to be removed during the build process or they hinder
> cross-compilation.

Got it. As long as the mask doesn't override the default mask, the change is
fine by me then.

> 
> -- 
> Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
> http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

[raymes, 2011-05-02 21:30:26]

LGTM

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:39 PM,  <petkov@chromium.org> wrote:
> On 2011/04/28 21:19:25, Flameeyes-Gentoo wrote:
>>
>> Il giorno gio, 28/04/2011 alle 21.08 +0000, mailto:petkov@chromium.org ha
>> scritto:
>> >
>> > I'm just confused why you need to mask all these .la files
>> > individually when
>> > they should be masked already by the global *.la mask.
>> >
>> >
>
>> Because they need to be removed during the build process or they hinder
>> cross-compilation.
>
> Got it. As long as the mask doesn't override the default mask, the change is
> fine by me then.
>
>
>> --
>> Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
>> http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
>
>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/6883231/
>