On 07/27/2010 07:51 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > 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... >
But adding --as-needed by default does not (now) break packages not respecting LDFLAGS. Regards,
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
