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