| 1 |
While we can continually loop around w/ the "--as-needed is evil since |
| 2 |
c++ does this one odd thing occasionally" argument, why not hear from |
| 3 |
the folks using it, specifically finding out what breaks in their |
| 4 |
usage? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Ciaran: yes, just because the tree works now w/ --as-needed doesn't |
| 7 |
mean that future pkg versions will work. Dumb argument however |
| 8 |
(has shades of 'the sky is falling') since *every* new version is |
| 9 |
untested and has the potential to break against our accepted build |
| 10 |
environments (or to break pre-existing pkgs). That's a known issue, |
| 11 |
and dealt with (30 days stablization among other things). |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
So... folks have pointed out a benefit to using --as-needed. The |
| 14 |
benefit itself doesn't seem particularly in dispute, analyze the |
| 15 |
fallout from it- if the best that is offered is "the spec says |
| 16 |
otherwise", screw the spec frankly- a .01% breakage w/ 99.99% pkgs |
| 17 |
getting a positive gain is a strong argument for doing exemptions |
| 18 |
where needed. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Basically, pull out the stats of the breakage. There is *always* risk |
| 21 |
in changes (new gcc, new bash breaking paludis/portage, etc), someone |
| 22 |
kindly come back w/ stats backing their specific viewpoint. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Arguing over the spec at this point isn't going anywhere, so just |
| 25 |
drop it. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
~harring |
Archives