Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:00:55 +0200
Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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!?
The way it is currently: Packages ignoring CFLAGS without a *very* good
reason (and 'upstream thinks they know better' is rarely a very good
reason, especially when upstream supposedly knowing better leads to v7
builds on v9 systems) need to be fixed. Packages ignoring LDFLAGS can
be fixed if the maintainer feels like it, but there's no requirement to
do so and filing bugs about it is frowned upon.
Until recently, LDFLAGS have been put in the "anyone using these is a
ricer" category. Unfortunately, the misguided promotion of 'as-needed'
despite its massive design flaws has lead people to think that setting
LDFLAGS is in some way useful or cool. I expect next someone will try
to find a way to force 'ASFLAGS' onto everyone...
This is totally irrelevant though. If I have --as-needed in my LDFLAGS
(I do) I still consider it a bug if a package does not honor it. So
what I'm doing is fixing the ebuild (*if* the ebuild does not mention a
reason of not honoring LDFLAGS of course) and submit it in bugzilla. I
don't know if the maintainers are getting annoying by this. They
shouldn't. If some LDFLAGS turn out to break a package in some way
doesn't mean that it's OK for the package to ignore LDFLAGS altogether.
If I have CFLAGS="-O999999 -fsuper-mega-fast-math
-enable-leet-broken-experimental-optimize" doesn't mean the package
should ignore CFLAGS :P
(As for --as-needed, it's the same as -O3 in CFLAGS; if a package turns
out to break, an ebuild *could* explicitly filter out -O3, but that's
not really a priority. In the end, if the user chooses ricer-flags and
breaks his system, he can blame himself. If he explicitly wants to
shoot himself in the foot, the ebuild should allow him to do so. Any
effort spent to protect the ricers from themselves is *wasted* effort
better spent somewhere else.
Not that I have ever seen a package that breaks with --as-needed though.
Of course that's just me.)
