| 1 |
Petteri Räty posted on Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:32:07 +0300 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>>> On 7/27/10 7:39 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 4 |
>>>> |
| 5 |
>>>> Is it time yet? I still find a lot of packages that do not even |
| 6 |
>>>> respect LDFLAGS yet - when all these get fixed to respect LDFLAGS, we |
| 7 |
>>>> will probably find yet more packages that are problematic with |
| 8 |
>>>> --as-needed. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> But adding --as-needed by default does not (now) break packages not |
| 11 |
> respecting LDFLAGS. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
This is, I think, the main point. Ignoring LDFLAGS doesn't need to delay |
| 14 |
a change in the default LDFLAGS because they aren't seen in that case |
| 15 |
anyway so the package is no more broken than before. Both ignoring the |
| 16 |
flags entirely and breaking with this specific flag are bugs, but they're |
| 17 |
separate bugs and can be treated separately. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 21 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 22 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives