Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Mike Auty
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Peter Volkov wrote: | Is there any reason why --as-needed is not enabled "by default"? There's still about 18 open bugs on the tracker[1] for it. You can see how many problems it had been causing by the huge number of blocking bugs. I've been using

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 30 May 2008 10:55:51 +0400 Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > В Чтв, 29/05/2008 в 11:02 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò пишет: > > I'm afraid that it will turn, for complex libraries like libexpat > > and users not using --as-needed, the message telling you the > > program cannot

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's what `emerge @preserved-rebuild` does, or do you mean something > different? I meant something different, see the rst. > Well, with preserve-libs the situation is this (using your example): > - user upgrades expat, portage keeps libexpat.so.0 arou

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Santiago M. Mola
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Mike Auty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Peter Volkov wrote: > | Is there any reason why --as-needed is not enabled "by default"? > > There's still about 18 open bugs on the tracker[1] for it. You can see > how many problems it had been causing by the huge number o

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
"Santiago M. Mola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > --as-needed breaking legitimate code is a problem, though. I wonder if > we have that kind of code in any application in the tree and if we > have some way to detect it. You could be looking for code not supposed to work under Solaris or Windows, a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Rémi Cardona
Santiago M. Mola a écrit : On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Mike Auty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've been using it for a pretty long time now (probably a couple weeks after Diego first blogged about it) and don't have many problems at all (now), but every once in a while a version bump or a new

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
Rémi Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > --as-needed breaks legitimate C++ code, I have yet to see it break > plain C code (but I could be wrong). This because C does not have constructors or static objects. I suppose I can write a couple of C files that can present the problem, but really, the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread David Leverton
On Friday 30 May 2008 13:22:15 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > The only thing that can be broken by using --as-needed is code that > assumes the order in calling the .init sections of a set of shared > objects. Such an order is not only changed by --as-needed usage but by > any other change in t

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's not just the order, it also breaks things that rely on the .init > section being called at all to register themselves with the core > application (with --as-needed, the .so doesn't get loaded in the first > place, so it doesn't get a chance to run

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 30 May 2008 18:29:49 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò) wrote: > David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It's not just the order, it also breaks things that rely on > > the .init section being called at all to register themselves with > > the core application (with -

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread David Leverton
On Friday 30 May 2008 17:29:49 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > This really is backward, solution-wise: you expect the "core > application" to know enough of the plugins to link them together, but > not enough to call their init functions... Why should it call their init functions, when a static

[gentoo-dev] VCS repository overview for Gentoo

2008-05-30 Thread Robin H. Johnson
This is more of a reminder email than anything else, in my capacity as the VCS administrator for Gentoo. Recently, some folk have wondered if we can come up with a better name than 'overlays', as a lot of the newer repositories aren't actually overlays of the tree, but rather independent developme

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Luca Barbato
David Leverton wrote: On Friday 30 May 2008 17:29:49 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: This really is backward, solution-wise: you expect the "core application" to know enough of the plugins to link them together, but not enough to call their init functions... Why should it call their init func

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:13:32 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Talk to the upstream about this, probably getting a satisfying > solution isn't that difficult. The solution is to use --as-needed in the same way that -ffast-math is used: only with applications specifically designed to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Luca Barbato
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: --as-needed is fundamentally broken by design and causes legitimate code to break. Basically C++ quasi-standard corner cases nobody uses, that happen to work on ELF only and that should be removed in the next revision of 0x ? Implicit plugin loading isn't exactly a san

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:29:26 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > --as-needed is fundamentally broken by design and causes legitimate > > code to break. > > Basically C++ quasi-standard corner cases nobody uses, that happen to > work on ELF only and that shou

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Mart Raudsepp
On R, 2008-05-30 at 20:20 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:13:32 +0200 > Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Talk to the upstream about this, probably getting a satisfying > > solution isn't that difficult. > > The solution is to use --as-needed in the same way that -

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 31 May 2008 00:31:22 +0300 Mart Raudsepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On R, 2008-05-30 at 20:20 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:13:32 +0200 > > Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Talk to the upstream about this, probably getting a satisfying > > > solutio

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

2008-05-30 Thread Mart Raudsepp
On R, 2008-05-30 at 22:37 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2008 00:31:22 +0300 > Mart Raudsepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On R, 2008-05-30 at 20:20 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:13:32 +0200 > > > Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Talk to

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

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 31 May 2008 00:47:44 +0300 Mart Raudsepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Paludis is fine with as-needed. But hey, don't let reality get in > > the way of your pathetic attempts at turning everything into Paludis > > bashing. > > It happens to be the only package that I know of that couldn't

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

2008-05-30 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 22:53 Fri 30 May , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2008 00:47:44 +0300 > Mart Raudsepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The story that matters here is, that a C++ corner case that does not > > work on 0.01% of packages with --as-needed and breaks on non-ELF > > platforms, should not ca

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

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:07:43 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 22:53 Fri 30 May , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sat, 31 May 2008 00:47:44 +0300 > > Mart Raudsepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The story that matters here is, that a C++ corner case that does > > > not work

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

2008-05-30 Thread Luca Barbato
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 31 May 2008 00:47:44 +0300 Mart Raudsepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Paludis is fine with as-needed. But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your pathetic attempts at turning everything into Paludis bashing. It happens to be the only package that I know of tha

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

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 31 May 2008 01:08:21 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Except that Paludis is fine with --as-needed. > > Ok, then everything in the tree is covered and we can move to having > --as-needed as default. Is the next version of everything in the tree covered? Have you made sur

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

2008-05-30 Thread Luca Barbato
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:07:43 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 22:53 Fri 30 May , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 31 May 2008 00:47:44 +0300 Mart Raudsepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The story that matters here is, that a C++ corner case that does not

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

2008-05-30 Thread Luca Barbato
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: I'd bet you could get a pretty long way by shoving -ffast-math into CFLAGS by default before anyone would notice... Non sequitur. We are talking about --as-needed, not -ffast-math. -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_

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

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 31 May 2008 01:13:58 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know exactly which standard -ffast-math violates (IEEE/ISO floating > point spec) and how (the man page is quite complete about this), > --as-needed doesn't have any warning about this, there isn't any > standard that

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

2008-05-30 Thread Brian Harring
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:26:44AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2008 01:13:58 +0200 > Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I know exactly which standard -ffast-math violates (IEEE/ISO floating > > point spec) and how (the man page is quite complete about this), > > --as-n

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

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 30 May 2008 16:43:38 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ISO/IEC 14882:1998 section 3.7.1 paragraph 2. > > Might want to confirm it's in 14882:2003, since the '98 was > withdrawn... ~harring It's in all the way up to the current 0x draft. It even has the same section and pa

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

2008-05-30 Thread Luca Barbato
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 31 May 2008 01:13:58 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I know exactly which standard -ffast-math violates (IEEE/ISO floating point spec) and how (the man page is quite complete about this), --as-needed doesn't have any warning about this, there isn't a

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

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 31 May 2008 01:54:45 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ISO/IEC 14882:1998 section 3.7.1 paragraph 2. > > "If an object of static storage duration has initialization or a > destructor with side effects, it shall not be eliminated even if > it appears to be unused, except th

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

2008-05-30 Thread Luca Barbato
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Linking with as-needed is the stage in which the elimination occurs, and as-needed is the cause of the elimination. So yes, it is related. The linker just does bookkeeping, if there aren't symbols used, the library won't be in the list. Still, PE and ELF are older tha

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

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 31 May 2008 02:17:15 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Linking with as-needed is the stage in which the elimination occurs, > > and as-needed is the cause of the elimination. So yes, it is > > related. > > The linker just does bookkeeping, if there

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

2008-05-30 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sat, 31 May 2008 00:47:44 +0300 Mart Raudsepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Portage developers - is there anything we should do to get --as-needed > to make.conf.example and other places, beyond fixing the known bugs on > the appropriate bug tracker? make.conf.example is no big deal, that's jus

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

2008-05-30 Thread Luca Barbato
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Which is where the design flaw is -- as-needed incorrectly assumes that the only type of dependency between shared objects is a name dependency. This isn't true with C++ static initialisers. I don't see why should be different than abusing .init in any other language tha

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

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 31 May 2008 03:03:42 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Which is where the design flaw is -- as-needed incorrectly assumes > > that the only type of dependency between shared objects is a name > > dependency. This isn't true with C++ static initialise

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

2008-05-30 Thread Josh Saddler
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:07:43 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I see that a number of packages in the tree explicitly filter -ffast-math. That's mostly from the bad old days when users were encouraged to use silly CFLAGS... 1. _When_ was this? 2. _Who_ w

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

2008-05-30 Thread Brian Harring
While we can continually loop around w/ the "--as-needed is evil since c++ does this one odd thing occasionally" argument, why not hear from the folks using it, specifically finding out what breaks in their usage? Ciaran: yes, just because the tree works now w/ --as-needed doesn't mean that fu

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

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 30 May 2008 18:43:56 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So... folks have pointed out a benefit to using --as-needed. But they haven't. They've pointed out a flaw in libtool that is sort of worked around sometimes at the expense of breaking things by using as-needed. The corre

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

2008-05-30 Thread Brian Harring
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 02:50:20AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 30 May 2008 18:43:56 -0700 > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So... folks have pointed out a benefit to using --as-needed. > > But they haven't. They've pointed out a flaw in libtool that is sort of > worked aro

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

2008-05-30 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 30 May 2008 18:43:56 -0700 > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So... folks have pointed out a benefit to using --as-needed. > > But they haven't. They've pointed out a flaw in libtool that is sort of > w

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

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:01:24 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The correct solution is to fix libtool., but that's evidently > > beyond the abilities of people who're only interested in increasing > > their epenis size by throwing more silly options in config files. > > Then go do

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

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 31 May 2008 07:38:12 +0530 "Nirbheek Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) You say the benefits haven't been pointed out, while several posts > have already done so. You seem to be the only one pretending to be > unaware of them. No no no. The benefits described would be obtained by fix

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

2008-05-30 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2008 07:38:12 +0530 > "Nirbheek Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 1) You say the benefits haven't been pointed out, while several posts >> have already done so. You seem to be the only one pretending t

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

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 31 May 2008 07:53:05 +0530 "Nirbheek Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No no no. The benefits described would be obtained by fixing > > libtool. What you get from as-needed is a half-arsed > > sometimes-working subset of those benefits. as-needed is not the > > fix for the libtool pro

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

2008-05-30 Thread Ravi Pinjala
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 31 May 2008 07:38:12 +0530 "Nirbheek Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1) You say the benefits haven't been pointed out, while several posts have already done so. You seem to be the only one pretending to be unaware of them. No no no. The benefits described wou

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

2008-05-30 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Once again, you do not support your argument with anything but your >> own word. Don't make me choke on the salt please :) > > Uhm. You're suggesting that the underlying issue is not a libtool > problem? Or you're sugges

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

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 31 May 2008 08:28:27 +0530 "Nirbheek Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Fact: the underlying issue is a libtool bug. > > Fact: It can't be fixed easily and/or in a reasonable time-frame. Else > someone would've done it -- heck you could've fixed it. Untrue. The amount of effort that'

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

2008-05-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:50:49 -0500 Ravi Pinjala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Could you explain, for the benefit of us spectators, what these > libtool problems are, and what cleaner solution you have in mind? > It'd make this whole discussion a lot more comprehensible. libtool links against depend

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

2008-05-30 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2008 08:28:27 +0530 > "Nirbheek Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Fact: It can't be fixed easily and/or in a reasonable time-frame. Else >> someone would've done it -- heck you could've fixed it. > > U

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

2008-05-30 Thread Brian Harring
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 08:45:09AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Ciaran McCreesh > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 31 May 2008 08:28:27 +0530 > > "Nirbheek Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Fact: It works. Unlike your vapour-proposal to "fix libtool

[gentoo-dev] packages up for grabs

2008-05-30 Thread Mike Frysinger
many of these are low maintence ... i'd forgotten i was even listed under them as i havent seen a bug report in a long time. some i added (well probably too many) on a lark, so if they do end up being crappy and no one cares, i guess that's why we have a tree cleaners group. no herd: app-admin

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

2008-05-30 Thread Michal Kurgan
On Sat, 31 May 2008 02:17:48 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2008 03:03:42 +0200 > Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > Which is where the design flaw is -- as-needed incorrectly assumes > > > that the only type of dependency be

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

2008-05-30 Thread Roy Marples
On Saturday 31 May 2008 00:16:31 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Ok, then everything in the tree is covered and we can move to having > > --as-needed as default. > > Is the next version of everything in the tree covered? Have you made > sure that software isn't merely working by fluke? We interupt thi

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

2008-05-30 Thread Peter Volkov
В Птн, 30/05/2008 в 20:28 -0700, Brian Harring пишет: > Either way, basically it's coming down to if gentoo wants to follow > the definition of 'academic' right, or 'pragmatic' right. Exempting > ciaran, vote seems to be pragmatic. Well, although I've asked about problems with having --as-needed