Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

[Ravi Pinjala]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 07:38:12 +0530
> "Nirbheek Chauhan" <nirbheek.chauhan@×××××.com> wrote:
>> 1) You say the benefits haven't been pointed out, while several posts
>> have already done so. You seem to be the only one pretending to be
>> unaware of them.
>
> No no no. The benefits described would be obtained by fixing libtool.
> What you get from as-needed is a half-arsed sometimes-working subset of
> those benefits. as-needed is not the fix for the libtool problems.
>
>> 2) The "expense of breaking things" is completely unqualified in your
>> post. Here's some context: "expense" is minimal since the problem is
>> easily fixable, and "breaking things" is the list of bugs on the
>> tracker bug -- 19 with most of them already having patches that just
>> need to be committed
>
> And all of which are utterly pointless.
>
>> 3) You say fixing libtool is the correct solution but you don't say
>> why or explain how. You don't give any information at all, and due to
>> the non-existant evidence, I am going to take the statement with a
>> fist of salt.
>
> I'm assuming everyone contributing to this thread knows exactly what the
> libtool problems are... But from the looks of things, plenty of people
> are quite happy to jump in and yell when they don't have the slightest
> clue what the root problem is, what as-needed changes, what as-needed
> breaks or how as-needed is unrelated to the problem. And unfortunately,
> it looks like those people are the ones that're going to be making the
> decisions.
>

Could you explain, for the benefit of us spectators, what these libtool 
problems are, and what cleaner solution you have in mind? It'd make this 
whole discussion a lot more comprehensible.

--Ravi
-- 
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list