1 |
On 07/27/2010 07:51 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:41:36 -0700 |
3 |
> "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> On 7/27/10 7:39 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
6 |
>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:29:06 +0200 |
7 |
>>> Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@g.o> wrote: |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>> Is it time yet? I still find a lot of packages that do not even |
10 |
>>> respect LDFLAGS yet - when all these get fixed to respect LDFLAGS, |
11 |
>>> we will probably find yet more packages that are problematic with |
12 |
>>> --as-needed. |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> I think that the arch teams doing the stabilizations are a good safety |
15 |
>> net against that. And having --as-needed by default makes those issues |
16 |
>> easier to detect. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Not entirely true, because as I tried to explain, a package needs to |
19 |
> first respect our LDFLAGS to respect our --as-needed in the second |
20 |
> place. Since the QA trigger in portage is based on --hash-style=gnu, |
21 |
> you'd have to make that the default as well to find a package |
22 |
> ignoring LDFLAGS... |
23 |
> |
24 |
|
25 |
But adding --as-needed by default does not (now) break packages not |
26 |
respecting LDFLAGS. |
27 |
|
28 |
Regards, |