On Samstag, 26. Juli 2008, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > > Um, this already is the policy. We've always fixed bug reports about > > LDFLAGS being ignored. > > Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this > policy doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about LDFLAGS being > ignored are usually fixed, so I ask for the formal enacting of this policy.
Afaik it has always been the way that *sane* LDFLAGS are to be respected, but exceptions exist of course and it's up to the maintainer to mangle or clear your LDFLAGS, if deemed necessary. I'd like to know, why Mark asked to bring this question up here. Shouldn't this be common sense!? Carsten
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
