Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mike Auty <ikelos@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 07:16:18
Message-Id: 483FA9BE.9040506@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default? by Peter Volkov
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA1
3
4 Peter Volkov wrote:
5 | Is there any reason why --as-needed is not enabled "by default"?
6
7 There's still about 18 open bugs on the tracker[1] for it. You can see
8 how many problems it had been causing by the huge number of blocking bugs.
9
10 I've been using it for a pretty long time now (probably a couple weeks
11 after Diego first blogged about it) and don't have many problems at all
12 (now), but every once in a while a version bump or a new package will
13 just fail to compile properly and the problem leads back to as-needed.
14 I'm not sure whether ~arch users would be able to catch all the
15 as-needed bugs before they hit stable, so I couldn't say whether it
16 should be enabled by default or not.
17
18 I also don't think it would completely eliminate the problems that Diego
19 mentioned with preserve-libs (there could still be instances where bar
20 and foo both NEEDED thing.so, but bar had been compiled more recently
21 and needed thing.so.1 whilst foo needed thing.so.0, and starting bar
22 would break trying to load both)...
23
24 Mike 5:)
25
26 [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=129413
27 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
28 Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
29
30 iEYEARECAAYFAkg/qb4ACgkQu7rWomwgFXpl7wCdFhDuZbQOVy1b12dgXbZbSWtj
31 dIMAn3Z6FDx5HW1KD83JxdboNrQOOap1
32 =Nca2
33 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
34 --
35 gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default? "Santiago M. Mola" <coldwind@g.o>