On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 19:35:56 +0200 Harald van Dijk <true...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:26:12PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote: > > > So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect > > > the LDFLAGS. > > > > yes. IIRC it has been stated on this list before, that a change which > > changes the resulting binary always needs to be done in a revbump. > > If that's true, that doesn't make sense. Take one extreme case: let's > say libgcj, part of gcc, has a problem with LDFLAGS, and you fixed it. > But the majority of people using gcc don't even turn on java support, > those that do have a working libgcj already, and gcc can easily take > hours to build. Should you revbump? > > There are always exceptions. Maybe you don't consider LDFLAGS support > in general one of those exceptions, but clearly some others do. You > can't just tell them "there are no exceptions" when there are, you need > to explain why this isn't a valid reason to make an exception. > My impression, too, is that few people care enough about LDFLAGS support > to want to rebuild packages for it, so I would not have bumped either, > but I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong. I think it's up to the discretion of the maintainer in this case. Of course, when you're not the maintainer, err on the side of caution. (i wouldn't do a revbump for LDFLAGS on my own packages. CFLAGS, yes.) -- fonts, gcc-porting, and it's all by design toolchain, wxwidgets to keep us from losing our minds @ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
