| 1 |
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:26:12PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote: |
| 2 |
> > So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect |
| 3 |
> > the LDFLAGS. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> yes. IIRC it has been stated on this list before, that a change which |
| 6 |
> changes the resulting binary always needs to be done in a revbump. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
If that's true, that doesn't make sense. Take one extreme case: let's |
| 9 |
say libgcj, part of gcc, has a problem with LDFLAGS, and you fixed it. |
| 10 |
But the majority of people using gcc don't even turn on java support, |
| 11 |
those that do have a working libgcj already, and gcc can easily take |
| 12 |
hours to build. Should you revbump? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
There are always exceptions. Maybe you don't consider LDFLAGS support |
| 15 |
in general one of those exceptions, but clearly some others do. You |
| 16 |
can't just tell them "there are no exceptions" when there are, you need |
| 17 |
to explain why this isn't a valid reason to make an exception. |
| 18 |
My impression, too, is that few people care enough about LDFLAGS support |
| 19 |
to want to rebuild packages for it, so I would not have bumped either, |
| 20 |
but I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong. |
Archives