| 1 |
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 5:30 AM Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 2020-05-25 at 21:09 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 3 |
> > If I understand you correctly, we should just drop the USE="pic" |
| 4 |
> > logic |
| 5 |
> > from the remaining packages that have it? Or are you trying to say |
| 6 |
> > something else? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Drop USE=asm unless there's a real reason to it: Such a useflag is, |
| 10 |
> IMHO, at the same level of a useflag on dev-lang/python that would |
| 11 |
> toggle dict's underlying implementations but not the semantics of the |
| 12 |
> language. |
| 13 |
> Have USE=pic for its historical meaning, aka, sacrificing everything to |
| 14 |
> have PIC shared libs because your system enforces this (pax). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Thanks, this last sentence gives me a better understanding of why this |
| 17 |
"pic" USE flag exists at all. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Note that having the 'pic' useflag should be considered something to be |
| 20 |
> fixed: rewrite the asm in a PIC way. But these days nobody has the will |
| 21 |
> to do it since this is mostly an issue on x86+pax, both being slowly |
| 22 |
> decreasing. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Given that PaX has been stripped out of official Gentoo kernels due to |
| 25 |
the grsecurity licensing issue, I wonder if there is any other good |
| 26 |
reason to keep the "pic" USE flag today. Surely this affects a very |
| 27 |
small population of users. |
Archives