On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 08:45:09AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <ciaran.mccreesh@...> wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 May 2008 08:28:27 +0530
> > "Nirbheek Chauhan" <nirbheek.chauhan@...> wrote:
> >> Fact: It works. Unlike your vapour-proposal to "fix libtool".
> > But it doesn't work. And fixing libtool isn't vapour. Read the Debian
> > patch.
> Fixing libtool isn't vapour, neither is the debian patch, but your
> plan/proposal to do is non-existant. You're just saying "Do this
> because I say you should, I don't know how, but you should. Oh, and if
> you don't you're all idiots".
It's worth noting the debian patch was also rejected by upstream-
Full thread in question-
Basically, libtool upstream points at several rather hard issues to
fixing it fully. Worth noting that was also in '04- 4 years later
(with said debian patch in use), issue still is unfixed upstream.
> >> Fact: Breakages are rare, code which causes it is discouraged anyway,
> >> and is fixable in any case. We're not a standards organisation.
> > You seriously think Gentoo has the manpower to go around making
> > unnecessary changes to upstream code? And there's nothing in the C++
> > standard discouraging static initialisation.
Considering static initialization doesn't always play nice on other
platforms (porting rekall 2.2 on osx comes to mind), I'd expect the
sources in question to be addressing the issue themselves frankly
(which is what occured with rekall).
Either way, basically it's coming down to if gentoo wants to follow
the definition of 'academic' right, or 'pragmatic' right. Exempting
ciaran, vote seems to be pragmatic.
Cc'ing council, would like them to discuss this for upcoming meeting.