Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Santiago M. Mola" <coldwind@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 12:09:28
Message-Id: 3c32af40805300509o7a3c042av8f95f422b02ea39b@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default? by Mike Auty
1 On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Mike Auty <ikelos@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > Peter Volkov wrote:
4 > | Is there any reason why --as-needed is not enabled "by default"?
5 >
6 > There's still about 18 open bugs on the tracker[1] for it. You can see
7 > how many problems it had been causing by the huge number of blocking bugs.
8 >
9 > I've been using it for a pretty long time now (probably a couple weeks
10 > after Diego first blogged about it) and don't have many problems at all
11 > (now), but every once in a while a version bump or a new package will
12 > just fail to compile properly and the problem leads back to as-needed.
13 > I'm not sure whether ~arch users would be able to catch all the
14 > as-needed bugs before they hit stable, so I couldn't say whether it
15 > should be enabled by default or not.
16
17 That's not a problem at all. If we choose to support --as-needed by
18 default we'd get testing from maintainers when adding new ebuilds, and
19 from arch teams before ebuilds hit stable.
20
21 --as-needed breaking legitimate code is a problem, though. I wonder if
22 we have that kind of code in any application in the tree and if we
23 have some way to detect it.
24
25 Regards,
26 --
27 Santiago M. Mola
28 Jabber ID: cooldwind@×××××.com
29 --
30 gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default? flameeyes@gmail.com (Diego 'Flameeyes' =?utf-8?Q?Petten=C3=B2?=)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default? "Rémi Cardona" <remi@g.o>