On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:41:36 -0700
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 7/27/10 7:39 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:29:06 +0200
> > Tomáš Chvátal <scarab...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > Is it time yet? I still find a lot of packages that do not even
> > respect LDFLAGS yet - when all these get fixed to respect LDFLAGS,
> > we will probably find yet more packages that are problematic with
> > --as-needed.
>
> I think that the arch teams doing the stabilizations are a good safety
> net against that. And having --as-needed by default makes those issues
> easier to detect.
Not entirely true, because as I tried to explain, a package needs to
first respect our LDFLAGS to respect our --as-needed in the second
place. Since the QA trigger in portage is based on --hash-style=gnu,
you'd have to make that the default as well to find a package
ignoring LDFLAGS...
jer
