Archives
Archives
| From: | Peter Volkov <pva@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?) | ||
| Date: | Sat, 31 May 2008 06:35:16 | ||
| Message-Id: | 1212215151.17218.9.camel@camobap | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?) by Brian Harring |
||
| 1 | В Птн, 30/05/2008 в 20:28 -0700, Brian Harring пишет: |
| 2 | > Either way, basically it's coming down to if gentoo wants to follow |
| 3 | > the definition of 'academic' right, or 'pragmatic' right. Exempting |
| 4 | > ciaran, vote seems to be pragmatic. |
| 5 | |
| 6 | Well, although I've asked about problems with having --as-needed by |
| 7 | default, I'd better go with academic. C++ is quite common language to |
| 8 | ignore its design problems and in the end it's not hard to define |
| 9 | LDFLAGS in make.conf. |
| 10 | |
| 11 | -- |
| 12 | Peter. |
| 13 | |
| 14 | -- |
| 15 | gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?) | Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> |