| 1 |
On Wednesday 18 January 2012 06:42:37 Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/18/2012 01:40 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sunday 23 October 2011 09:50:04 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On Sonntag 23 Oktober 2011 15:34:30 Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> If you only wanted to remove these files, you are free to use |
| 6 |
> >>> INSTALL_MASK locally instead of downgrading the quality of tree. |
| 7 |
> >>> |
| 8 |
> >>> Do you have any idea how much time me, and aballier spent to make |
| 9 |
> >>> cdparanoia's build system as clean as it is now? And then to coordinate |
| 10 |
> >>> them with upstream xiph.org? |
| 11 |
> >>> Then I see this... Not acceptable by any standards. |
| 12 |
> >> |
| 13 |
> >> I'd like to get my standards up to speed, so may I respectfully ask- |
| 14 |
> >> what is, apart from link time, the Gentoo-user-visible difference |
| 15 |
> >> between * removing the .a files in the ebuild |
| 16 |
> >> * and not building them in the first place? |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > there is no post-emerge visible difference, but i wouldn't underestimate |
| 19 |
> > the speed of things. for most packages, you're talking about compiling |
| 20 |
> > the files twice (once as PIC and once as not). |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> [ ... grabbing random mail from this thread ... ] |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> i've already fixed cdparanoid properly. |
| 25 |
> it was pretty much 2 liner, so whatever was committed before was simply |
| 26 |
> out of laziness to investigate. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
come now, no need to jab people. the obvious answer to you might not have |
| 29 |
been obvious to the committer. we're all just doing the best we can with the |
| 30 |
time we have. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
if you want some touch nuggets to tackle, take a look at the openssl ebuild. |
| 33 |
its generation of static archives are less than ideal because the build system |
| 34 |
creates one set of objects (all built with PIC), then produces a lib.so and |
| 35 |
lib.a from that single set. |
| 36 |
-mike |
Archives