Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:21:32
Message-Id: 20100628152107.GA19171@hrair
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults by David Leverton
1 On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:46:53PM +0100, David Leverton wrote:
2 > This has been pointed
3 > out ever since the issue was first discussed, but some people like to
4 > stick their fingers in their ears and dismiss legitimate technical
5 > arguments as "trolling" and "politics".
7 The issue is some folk are trying to be pragmatic, and some folk are
8 sticking to "it's not the proper long term solution thus don't do it
9 at all".
11 The question shouldn't be "is it long term the right or wrong
12 solution", the question should be "yes it's not perfect, but what is
13 the gain of deploying it?"
15 Literally, do we break more by deploying it then we gain? Is the
16 reduction in intermediate broken packages (and general linkage
17 whonkyness) being mostly sorted worth the cost of some cranky packages
18 breaking from it?
20 That is the question. If the only correct answer is "it must be the
21 right technical solution always" we'd theoretically be running hurd
22 rather than linux after all, nor would the prefix project be in wide
23 usage.
25 Alternatively rather than arguing, someone needs to go out and get
26 some data to back this change (and/or back the stance it causes more
27 damage than it's worth).
29 Personally, I've been running as-needed for a while- while not a fan
30 of it, it's been an overall plus for my usage. The question is if
31 it's an overall gain to deploy globally (iirc fedora/ubuntu are
32 running this way now).
34 ~harring


Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] [OT] h v l Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>