| 1 |
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> said: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 06:31:52PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 4 |
> > >> It seems like few of our fellow developers don't know how to track |
| 5 |
> > >> down |
| 6 |
> > >> packages that don't respect LDFLAGS. Adding -Wl,--hash-style=gnu |
| 7 |
> > >> is a good way |
| 8 |
> > >> to do that. I would like to see this linker flag enabled by |
| 9 |
> > >> default on LDFLAGS |
| 10 |
> > >> (or at least for the dev/ profiles for now). Do you agree? |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > I would really really *really* appreciated if our beloved arch |
| 13 |
> > > testers ( at least for linux amd64/x86 because they are the first |
| 14 |
> > > who stabilize a package ) make this default on their build boxes. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > sounds like someone needs to update/extend the arch testing |
| 17 |
> > documentation. random e-mails posted to random dev lists are quickly |
| 18 |
> > forgotten. new arch testers however should be reading the arch |
| 19 |
> > tester documnt. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I will update the guide for amd64 HT and I will strongly advice the |
| 22 |
> rest of the arches to do that as well. Using my QA powerzzz I will be |
| 23 |
> quite strict from now on with arches making such stabilizations. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
i agree on this. |
| 26 |
packages on which portage complains about stuff like |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
dohtml: bla file not found |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
should not be marked stable. arch testers should not let stuff like this |
| 31 |
pass by. of course, neither should developers. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
but then again, we need better documentation of all of this. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
lyckily, the wiki effort has been killed off by a recent cabal</sarcasm> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
kind regards |
| 38 |
Thilo |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> > > It is annoying to mark a package stable when it has *clear* QA |
| 42 |
> > > problems. |
| 43 |
> > |
| 44 |
> > please dont blow this out of proportion. two points: |
| 45 |
> > - stabilizing newer versions of a package when there is no QA |
| 46 |
> > |
| 47 |
> > regression is fine. |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> Fair enough, still those QA need fixing. The fact that these QA probs |
| 50 |
> are not regressions doesn't mean it is ok to ignore them |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> > - ignoring LDFLAGS, while incorrect, is rarely going to lead to |
| 53 |
> > |
| 54 |
> > broken packages being emerged on end users' systems. ignoring |
| 55 |
> > CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS however is much more likely to result in problems for |
| 56 |
> > end users when working with multilib or cross builds. |
| 57 |
> > -mike |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> Of course. Respecting any *FLAGS is vital and definitely ony of the |
| 60 |
> many reasons we use Gentoo. |
Archives