1 |
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:52:36 -0400 |
2 |
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> remind me again why this matters ? binutils has been defaulting to |
5 |
> hash- style=both for quite a while now. |
6 |
> -mike |
7 |
|
8 |
Well, I already tried in my P.S. but let me try again: I'm not |
9 |
suggesting that devs should have more optimized binaries |
10 |
- it matters b/c of this in misc-functions.sh: |
11 |
|
12 |
if [[ "${LDFLAGS}" == *--hash-style=gnu* ]] && [[ "${PN}" != *-bin ]] ; |
13 |
then; |
14 |
<do some magic here to detect ignored LDFLAGS> |
15 |
fi |
16 |
|
17 |
Good candidate to test is net-fs/mount-cifs (tiny, fast) |
18 |
|
19 |
You *only* get the following QA notice w/ LDFLAGS="-Wl,--hash-style=gnu" |
20 |
set: |
21 |
|
22 |
* QA Notice: Files built without respecting LDFLAGS have been detected |
23 |
* Please include the following list of files in your report: |
24 |
* /usr/bin/mount.cifs |
25 |
* /usr/bin/umount.cifs |
26 |
|
27 |
If you have another way to detect ignored LDFLAGS in portage, then you |
28 |
don't need to add anything to devs profiles. :) |
29 |
|
30 |
Hope that my proposal is more clear now. |
31 |
|
32 |
Cheers, |
33 |
|
34 |
DN |