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

[David Leverton]

On Saturday 31 May 2008 11:14:33 Luca Barbato wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Fact: the underlying issue is a libtool bug.
>
> Wrong, it isn't just that, --as-needed and libtool are unrelated.

The issue that as-needed tries to solve is libraries being linked to binaries 
or other libraries that don't use said library directly.  While it's true 
that libtool isn't the only cause, it does produce by far the most.

> > Fact: as-needed does not fix this bug. It attempts to work around it.
>
> Wrong, --as-needed does exactly what is supposed to do, precise
> bookkeeping.

It does do what it's supposed to do, unfortunately "what it's supposed to do" 
isn't the right thing in all cases.  And it's not "precise", it simply uses a 
different criterion that's better in some cases and worse in others.

> > Fact: as-needed breaks standard-compliant code.
>
> Wrong, --as-needed breaks disputable code that happens to be
> standard-compliant by a specific read of the standard. The fact the
> specific code is something wrong from the security/style/maintainability
> point makes it a bonus.

No-one's given any reason why it's "disputable", worse "style" or 
less "maintainable", other than "it doesn't work with --as-needed", quite a 
circular argument.  As for "security"... please show evidence, or I'll have 
to assume that that's just desperate FUD.

> > Fact: fixing the libtool bug would give all the benefits purportedly
> > given by using as-needed, without the drawbacks.
>
> Wrong, fixing libtool gives other benefits, so it's worth trying to fix
> it as well. The new autotools and proper usage of them makes life easier
> so it's worth improving on this side.

I really don't see what you're trying to say there....
-- 
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list