| 1 |
Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.de> posted g6dp32$1sl$1@×××××××××.org, |
| 3 |
> excerpted below, on Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:54:07 +0300: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> Le jeudi 24 juillet 2008 à 18:36 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar |
| 7 |
>>> Arahesis a écrit : |
| 8 |
>>>> I would like to suggest new policy stating that packages should |
| 9 |
>>>> respect LDFLAGS. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>>>> This policy is required to allow QA team to fix packages which ignore |
| 12 |
>>>> LDFLAGS. |
| 13 |
>>>> |
| 14 |
>>> this question might sound stupid, but what are you actually trying to |
| 15 |
>>> fix ? What do these packages do or do not do by ignoring your ldflags |
| 16 |
>>> that is so crucial to you ? |
| 17 |
>> "-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu,--sort-common,--as-needed" |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> In particular, --as-needed makes a HUGE very practical difference. It |
| 20 |
> may or may not be the wrong answer to the problem in theory, but lacking |
| 21 |
> anything even close to as workable right now, that alone is IMO reason |
| 22 |
> enough to work to get LDFLAGS honored. I appreciate the difference it |
| 23 |
> made here every time I run revdep-rebuild! |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> That's what makes observation of LDFLAGS very practically critical to me. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Fortunately, the majority of ebuilds/packages are honoring LDFLAGS. Of |
| 28 |
course it's kinda difficult to always check if a package honors it or |
| 29 |
not. But it's a good idea to file a bug for every package that does not |
| 30 |
honor it (without a reason). |
Archives