1 |
Petteri Räty posted on Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:32:07 +0300 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
>>> On 7/27/10 7:39 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
4 |
>>>> |
5 |
>>>> Is it time yet? I still find a lot of packages that do not even |
6 |
>>>> respect LDFLAGS yet - when all these get fixed to respect LDFLAGS, we |
7 |
>>>> will probably find yet more packages that are problematic with |
8 |
>>>> --as-needed. |
9 |
|
10 |
> But adding --as-needed by default does not (now) break packages not |
11 |
> respecting LDFLAGS. |
12 |
|
13 |
This is, I think, the main point. Ignoring LDFLAGS doesn't need to delay |
14 |
a change in the default LDFLAGS because they aren't seen in that case |
15 |
anyway so the package is no more broken than before. Both ignoring the |
16 |
flags entirely and breaking with this specific flag are bugs, but they're |
17 |
separate bugs and can be treated separately. |
18 |
|
19 |
-- |
20 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
21 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
22 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |