On 02/11/09 at 13:50 +0100, Peter Fritzsche wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > I thought people were supposed to discuss it on -devel@ before starting > > a MBF? > What is a MBF?
mass bug filing. > > Anyway, ways you could have made it better: > > - provide a step by step guide to reproduce the problem > > - use a usertag to follow all the bugs > > - provide a link to a wiki page where you would have put more info about > > solving the common problems. > > > > > Tried to build your package and it fails to build with GNU binutils-gold. > > > The important difference is that --no-add-needed is the default behavior > > > of of GNU binutils-gold. Please provide all needed libraries to the > > > linker when building your executables. > > > > Since this obviously breaks lots of packages, what about changing the > > default in binutils-gold instead? > I am not sure but do you think that it is a good way to link against a > library > without specify that you link against it? The question is not about what I think. The question is whether it's reasonable to expect A LOT of packages to be modified to accomodate this. > What I am currently testing is if there are crashes/segfaults possible when > linking with binutils-gold. But it seems that many packages doesn't create > problems for binutils-gold, but fail to build because they rely on the fact > that other libraries link against the libraries. So when they stop to link > against them the build of the "unrelated" executable would break (as it > breaks right now with --no-add-needed or binutils-gold). > > So things I could do is: ignore the fact that they don't specify the > libraries > which must be linked to work and wait until binutils-gold replaces old ld/old > ld switches to more sane default/third party library stops to link against > the > needed library - or report the problem and let the maintainer decide what to > do. > > I choose the latter one because I think that most maintainers don't know > about > the problems. Could you provide some numbers on the: - packages that FTBFS with binutils-gold - packages that FTBFS with binutils-gold because of --no-add-needed by default ? -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
