On 07/27/2010 07:51 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:41:36 -0700
> "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote:
> 
>> On 7/27/10 7:39 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:29:06 +0200
>>> Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@g.o> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is it time yet? I still find a lot of packages that do not even
>>> respect LDFLAGS yet - when all these get fixed to respect LDFLAGS,
>>> we will probably find yet more packages that are problematic with
>>> --as-needed.
>>
>> I think that the arch teams doing the stabilizations are a good safety
>> net against that. And having --as-needed by default makes those issues
>> easier to detect.
> 
> Not entirely true, because as I tried to explain, a package needs to
> first respect our LDFLAGS to respect our --as-needed in the second
> place. Since the QA trigger in portage is based on --hash-style=gnu,
> you'd have to make that the default as well to find a package
> ignoring LDFLAGS...
> 

But adding --as-needed by default does not (now) break packages not
respecting LDFLAGS.

Regards,