On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:17:48 +0200
Fabian Groffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 24-06-2008 14:15:10 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> wrote:
> > I would like to suggest that default LDFLAGS in Gentoo contain the
> > following flags: "-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu,--sort-common".
> >
> > -
В Втр, 24/06/2008 в 01:53 +0200, Robert Buchholz пишет:
> I've stumbled upon an inconsitency between package managers the other
> day [1], which was due to both an ebuild and an eclass defining
> inconsisting KEYWORDS.
But do we allow KEYWORDS in eclasses? Why? Each package should be tested
inde
Now that the packages depending on 2.3 are masked, masking this one
again for removal in 30 days.
--
Regards,
Ali Polatel
pgpN7f7hYDgvJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:05:39PM +0200, Tiziano M??ller wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 01:53:55AM +0200, Robert Buchholz wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I've stumbled upon an inconsitency between package managers the other
> >> day [1], which was due to both an ebuild and
Fabian Groffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> as long as it doesn't go in /base, but in the linux/freebsd profiles
> instead, it's fine with me.
--has-style=gnu should not be used on non-GLIBC systems (I'm unsure
about uclibc, but I'd be surprised if they do implement the GNU style
hash).
--
Die
On 24-06-2008 14:15:10 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> I would like to suggest that default LDFLAGS in Gentoo contain the following
> flags: "-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu,--sort-common".
>
> -O1 enables some basic optimizations.
> --hash-style=gnu causes that ld creates only new GN
I would like to suggest that default LDFLAGS in Gentoo contain the following
flags: "-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu,--sort-common".
-O1 enables some basic optimizations.
--hash-style=gnu causes that ld creates only new GNU-style hash tables.
--sort-common causes that ld sorts the common symbols by size
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 01:53:55AM +0200, Robert Buchholz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've stumbled upon an inconsitency between package managers the other
>> day [1], which was due to both an ebuild and an eclass defining
>> inconsisting KEYWORDS.
>>
>> bla-1.ebuild:
>> inherit
On 23-06-2008 15:21:31 -0700, Rob Cakebread wrote:
> Just a quick note here in case you work on Python packages.
> Recently repoman started warning that setuptools may be suspicious as an
> RDEPEND.
>
> A lot of Python packages use another namespace that setuptools provides,
> 'pkg_resources',
