Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek.chauhan@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 02:58:32
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?) by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
2 <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
3 >> Once again, you do not support your argument with anything but your
4 >> own word. Don't make me choke on the salt please :)
5 >
6 > Uhm. You're suggesting that the underlying issue is not a libtool
7 > problem? Or you're suggesting that as-needed fixes the libtool bug?
8 > Which basic fact that everyone discussing this should already know are
9 > you disputing?
11 I'm disputing your claim that fixing libtool is the correct solution
12 *right now*, and that it's sanely doable in a reasonable time-frame.
13 The former has been questioned by pretty much everyone else in the
14 thread, and the latter is probably false since you don't just do it
15 yourself.
17 >
18 >> Once again, rhetoric and insults without logic or reason. We all know
19 >> you know that you need facts to convince people, but you're not
20 >> providing any facts. One can only conclude that your purpose is not to
21 >> convince. I honestly am baffled what purpose you have in mind.
22 >
23 > I expect people to do their homework and understand what we're
24 > discussing. Do you expect me to start every post by explain what a
25 > linker is?
28 You said
30 "[...]plenty of people are quite happy to jump in and yell when they
31 don't have the slightest clue what the root problem is[...]"
33 I replied saying that the paragraph was full of "rhetoric and insults
34 without logic or reason". The latter part of the post is purely about
35 how you're doing the same even where you should be talking with facts.
37 Your reply seriously does not make sense to me.
39 >
40 >> > And unfortunately, it looks like those people are the ones that're
41 >> > going to be making the decisions.
42 >>
43 >> Excellent, then you are free to point and laugh when we trip and fall.
44 >> In the meantime, if you truly think everyone is making the wrong
45 >> decision, talk with some facts and/or statistics.
46 >
47 > Fact: the underlying issue is a libtool bug.
49 Fact: It can't be fixed easily and/or in a reasonable time-frame. Else
50 someone would've done it -- heck you could've fixed it.
52 >
53 > Fact: as-needed does not fix this bug. It attempts to work around it.
55 Fact: It works. Unlike your vapour-proposal to "fix libtool".
57 >
58 > Fact: as-needed breaks standard-compliant code.
60 Fact: Breakages are rare, code which causes it is discouraged anyway,
61 and is fixable in any case. We're not a standards organisation.
63 >
64 > Fact: fixing the libtool bug would give all the benefits purportedly
65 > given by using as-needed, without the drawbacks.
67 Fact: It hasn't been done forever, and won't be done anytime soon.
69 >
70 > It's quite simple, and if there're any of the above that you didn't
71 > already know then why are you wasting everyone else's time discussing
72 > things in this thread without doing some basic research first?
74 It's quite simple, and you already knew all of the above, so why are
75 you wasting everyone's time and energy discussing these things in this
76 thread?
78 Quite refreshing, seeing you type out your points in a clear manner
79 for clearer rebuttal. I am going to assume that the matter is settled
80 now.
82 --
83 ~Nirbheek Chauhan
84 --
85 gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?) Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>