| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 2 |
>> It seems like few of our fellow developers don't know how to track |
| 3 |
>> down |
| 4 |
>> packages that don't respect LDFLAGS. Adding -Wl,--hash-style=gnu is a |
| 5 |
>> good way |
| 6 |
>> to do that. I would like to see this linker flag enabled by default on |
| 7 |
>> LDFLAGS |
| 8 |
>> (or at least for the dev/ profiles for now). Do you agree? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I would really really *really* appreciated if our beloved arch testers ( at least for linux amd64/x86 |
| 11 |
> because they are the first who stabilize a package ) make this default |
| 12 |
> on their build boxes. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
sounds like someone needs to update/extend the arch testing |
| 15 |
documentation. random e-mails posted to random dev lists are quickly |
| 16 |
forgotten. new arch testers however should be reading the arch tester |
| 17 |
documnt. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> It is annoying to mark a package stable when it has *clear* QA problems. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
please dont blow this out of proportion. two points: |
| 22 |
- stabilizing newer versions of a package when there is no QA |
| 23 |
regression is fine. |
| 24 |
- ignoring LDFLAGS, while incorrect, is rarely going to lead to |
| 25 |
broken packages being emerged on end users' systems. ignoring |
| 26 |
CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS however is much more likely to result in problems for |
| 27 |
end users when working with multilib or cross builds. |
| 28 |
-mike |
Archives