On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Matt Turner, le Mon 15 Nov 2010 19:51:10 -0500, a écrit :
>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> > What's the actual problem --as-needed is trying to solve?
>> >
>> > The answer is mainly unwanted libraries being linked
Matt Turner, le Mon 15 Nov 2010 19:51:10 -0500, a écrit :
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > What's the actual problem --as-needed is trying to solve?
> >
> > The answer is mainly unwanted libraries being linked in as a result
> > of using pkg-config (and various other -conf
> I can't see why you think --as-needed is fundamentally wrong or unnecessary.
It is fundamentally wrong because -lfoo means I demand that the
initializers of libfoo.so run, whether or not I called anything in it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> What's the actual problem --as-needed is trying to solve?
>
> The answer is mainly unwanted libraries being linked in as a result
> of using pkg-config (and various other -config variants), though there
> are other, lesser, culprits. The pkg-c
On 16.11.2010 01:24, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:02:57PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 14.11.2010 16:06, Roger Leigh wrote:
While I understand the rationale for --no-copy-dt-needed-entries for
preventing encapsulation violations via indirect linking, I don't agree
with the u
On 14.11.2010 13:19, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 15:43:57 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
For wheezy I'm planning to change the linking behaviour for DSOs
(turning on --as-needed and --no-copy-dt-needed-entries. The
rationale is summarized in
http://wiki.debian.org/ToolChain/DSOL
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:02:57PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 14.11.2010 16:06, Roger Leigh wrote:
While I understand the rationale for --no-copy-dt-needed-entries for
preventing encapsulation violations via indirect linking, I don't agree
with the use of --as-needed *at all*.
> On 15.11.2010 07:16, Roland McGrath wrote:
> yes, OpenSuse is using --as-needed, but not --no-add-needed.
That is a pretty nutty choice.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:02:57PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> maybe, and fix it in N - ~100 packages? Or fix the ~100 packages?
> The point of injection is for discussion. I would prefer having
> this set in dpkg-buildflags, and then disabled by these ~100
> packages. Note that this is proba
On 14.11.2010 16:06, Roger Leigh wrote:
While I understand the rationale for --no-copy-dt-needed-entries for
preventing encapsulation violations via indirect linking, I don't agree
with the use of --as-needed *at all*. If a library has been explicitly
linked in, it shouldn't be removed. This is
On 15.11.2010 07:16, Roland McGrath wrote:
airlied_, does Fedora use --as-needed by default? Fedora 14 too?
mattst88: yes
The naming of the options makes people easily confused.
--no-add-needed is the only option Fedora's gcc passes.
yes, OpenSuse is using --as-needed, but not --no-add-ne
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:13:36PM +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
>> what would the effect on the
>> kfreebsd-* kernel be of removing all of the files which were originally
>> mentioned in Ben's mails in this bug report, and is that an option which
>> has been considered by the porters?
>
>> From my (
Robert Millan wrote:
> Given that:
> - gdm3 is now in a working state for Debian GNU/kFreeBSD
> - gdm isn't
Just wondering, what you consider a "working state".
With the exception of http://bugs.debian.org/586539, gdm works fine
here on kfreebsd-i386. And that bug is very probably no gdm-spec
On Mon, November 15, 2010 15:58, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 16:51:37 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
>> Le lundi 15 novembre 2010 Ã 13:20 +0100, Robert Millan a écrit :
> > I'd recommend removing kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} gdm binaries
> > from testing and then forgetting about th
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 16:51:37 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 15 novembre 2010 à 13:20 +0100, Robert Millan a écrit :
> > Given that:
> > - gdm3 is now in a working state for Debian GNU/kFreeBSD
> > - gdm isn't
> > - gdm3 is now the default
> > - gdm is an older version which
Le lundi 15 novembre 2010 à 13:20 +0100, Robert Millan a écrit :
> Given that:
> - gdm3 is now in a working state for Debian GNU/kFreeBSD
> - gdm isn't
> - gdm3 is now the default
> - gdm is an older version which will eventually be obsoleted
> - there's a reasonable/justified lack of in
Hi,
Given that:
- gdm3 is now in a working state for Debian GNU/kFreeBSD
- gdm isn't
- gdm3 is now the default
- gdm is an older version which will eventually be obsoleted
- there's a reasonable/justified lack of interest in debugging it
I'd recommend removing kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} gdm
17 matches
Mail list logo
