| 1 |
On 07/27/2010 07:51 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:41:36 -0700 |
| 3 |
> "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On 7/27/10 7:39 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:29:06 +0200 |
| 7 |
>>> Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> Is it time yet? I still find a lot of packages that do not even |
| 10 |
>>> respect LDFLAGS yet - when all these get fixed to respect LDFLAGS, |
| 11 |
>>> we will probably find yet more packages that are problematic with |
| 12 |
>>> --as-needed. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> I think that the arch teams doing the stabilizations are a good safety |
| 15 |
>> net against that. And having --as-needed by default makes those issues |
| 16 |
>> easier to detect. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Not entirely true, because as I tried to explain, a package needs to |
| 19 |
> first respect our LDFLAGS to respect our --as-needed in the second |
| 20 |
> place. Since the QA trigger in portage is based on --hash-style=gnu, |
| 21 |
> you'd have to make that the default as well to find a package |
| 22 |
> ignoring LDFLAGS... |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
But adding --as-needed by default does not (now) break packages not |
| 26 |
respecting LDFLAGS. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Regards, |
Archives