Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:09:52
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults by Ciaran McCreesh
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:16:32 +0100 as excerpted:

> --as-needed does not prevent breakage. It shoves some breakages under > the carpet so they're sometimes less visible, and sometimes easier to > fix when they happen. However, it does absolutely nothing to address any > of the root causes of the breakage, and it does introduce new breakages > itself. > > Had one tenth of the effort that had been put into running around and > adding in hacks to work around a deliberately broken toolchain instead > been put into fixing libtool and delivering better slotting mechanisms, > none of this would be an issue. > > Or is the policy "we've started running towards the cliff and we've > already debated the merits of jumping off it, so all you're allowed to > discuss now is how we remove the fence"?
OK, let's take that last analogy of yours, and expand it to better match rather more of the situation. The current situation is that we have a big mountain (with known unsafe cliffs) in the way of a journey we happen to make somewhat regularly. Now there's a 10 kilometer (or read mile, if you prefer) road over the mountain, with the next shortest alternative being a 110 km road around the mountain. Unfortunately, because the road over the mountain currently transits a particular cliff without tested guardrails, it's gated off (your fence) and marked with large warning signs, unguarded cliff ahead, proceed at your own risk. The 110 km road around the mountain is thus what most folks take now, with only a few deciding they can manage the risk if they go carefully (often after someone else points out the shortcut, and describes the problems so they can be careful at that cliff), and choosing to take that road. That's the current situation. Everyone seems to agree that we have the mountain, the 110 km long route around it that most folks take, and a potentially quite dangerous 10 km shortcut over it, that some few take instead. OK, as it so happens, a proposed guard rail along the dangerous parts has been surveyed, contracted, and is pretty much finished. Pretty much all that remains now is painting the stripes on the new section, and putting up the various curve left, curve right, etc, signage, and getting official sign-offs on the guard rails at an already listed set of particular sections of the cliff that need it. Except... There's a particular set of individuals that despite that almost finished section of road, only awaiting the paint, signage, and official signoffs, continues to argue that's not the /proper/ solution, that the /proper/ solution is to tunnel straight thru a particular section of the mountain, thereby bypassing the cliff entirely. In fact, not only do they claim that the tunnel is the proper solution and would in fact be less dangerous than transiting the cliff even with the guard rails is, they claim that the tunnel would have actually cost less to construct than the section of road transiting the cliff did. So here we are, playing politics at the meeting set to give the final go- ahead to complete the final inspections, the painting and the signage on the road transiting the cliff, a road that's all finished and actually in use by some already, save for that, and we still have this "tunnel bloc" of folks opposing it, continuing to argue that the tunnel is the /proper/ solution. Who knows at this point? The tunnel may in fact have been cheaper, and there's no question that it would have prevented the occasional careless driver still crashing thru the guard rails and going over the cliff. But the point is, we don't have that tunnel, but we do have the already basically finished road, well surveyed and already constructed, with only a bit of painting and certification left, yet the "tunnel bloc" is still opposing the road, arguing that the gate and warnings be maintained as they are, until that tunnel is properly finished, even at the cost of all those travelers having to take the 110 km long way around until that tunnel is completed and opened at some unpredictable time in the future, possibly a decade or more away. So yes, we ARE arguing that the final preparations be made and that the gate currently barring the way to that cliff come down. The fact of the matter is that yes, there is a cliff, but there's also a well constructed road with proper guard rails transiting that cliff, and pending the paint, signage, and final signoffs, it's ready to open and there's no reason other than the political opposition of the "tunnel bloc" not to make those last preparations, and then remove that gate and the warnings currently barring the way. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults David Leverton <levertond@××××××××××.com>