1 |
Brad, |
2 |
|
3 |
Aron Griffis wrote: [Wed Dec 10 2003, 08:28:35PM EST] |
4 |
> I personally have marked quite a few with append-flags just because I |
5 |
> don't have the time to fix it 'right', and the users would rather see |
6 |
> it compile at all than to have it not because a dev couldn't get to |
7 |
> it. |
8 |
|
9 |
Reading over Daniel's email, I don't think Daniel was saying that |
10 |
"append-flags -fPIC" is completely disallowed. I think his point was |
11 |
that my "64-bit && append-flags -fPIC" is not the best way. At the time |
12 |
that I wrote my original email, I thought I was actually doing things |
13 |
the best way, so Daniel's response was very helpful to clear up my |
14 |
misconception (and prevent me from propogating it). |
15 |
|
16 |
When fixing individual packages, there's always a trade-off between just |
17 |
making things work, and taking the time to actually develop a correct |
18 |
solution for the package in question. In each case, it's going to come |
19 |
down to how much time the developer has, and whether or not it's worth |
20 |
pursuing the complete fix... |
21 |
|
22 |
In the end, though, the best thing is to get it right and push the fix |
23 |
upstream so that there's less future work for us to do. ;-) |
24 |
|
25 |
Aron |
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
Aron Griffis |
29 |
Gentoo Linux Developer (alpha / ia64 / ruby / vim) |
30 |
Key fingerprint = E3B6 8734 C2D6 B5E5 AE76 FB3A 26B1 C5E3 2010 4EB0 |