| 1 |
On Sat, 31 May 2008 08:28:27 +0530 |
| 2 |
"Nirbheek Chauhan" <nirbheek.chauhan@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Fact: the underlying issue is a libtool bug. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Fact: It can't be fixed easily and/or in a reasonable time-frame. Else |
| 6 |
> someone would've done it -- heck you could've fixed it. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Untrue. The amount of effort that's been wasted messing around with |
| 9 |
as-needed could easily have been directed to fixing the root cause |
| 10 |
instead. Debian have already done most of the work. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> > Fact: as-needed does not fix this bug. It attempts to work around |
| 13 |
> > it. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Fact: It works. Unlike your vapour-proposal to "fix libtool". |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
But it doesn't work. And fixing libtool isn't vapour. Read the Debian |
| 18 |
patch. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> > Fact: as-needed breaks standard-compliant code. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Fact: Breakages are rare, code which causes it is discouraged anyway, |
| 23 |
> and is fixable in any case. We're not a standards organisation. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
You seriously think Gentoo has the manpower to go around making |
| 26 |
unnecessary changes to upstream code? And there's nothing in the C++ |
| 27 |
standard discouraging static initialisation. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> > Fact: fixing the libtool bug would give all the benefits purportedly |
| 30 |
> > given by using as-needed, without the drawbacks. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Fact: It hasn't been done forever, and won't be done anytime soon. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
And the Debian patch is...? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives