Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
It will at least allow QA team to fix such bugs where patches are already
available.
So, if bugs are being fixed why is there a need to fix something that
isn't broken with regards to a policy _needed_ to enforce this action?
Are bugs being ignored o
Ryan Hill wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:12:13 +0300
Nikos Chantziaras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not that I have ever seen a package that breaks with --as-needed
though. Of course that's just me.
Well, then, behold:
http://tinyurl.com/5jvkm9
Now you have. Enjoy. :)
Then I must be lucky.
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:12:13 +0300
Nikos Chantziaras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not that I have ever seen a package that breaks with --as-needed
> though. Of course that's just me.
Well, then, behold:
http://tinyurl.com/5jvkm9
Now you have. Enjoy. :)
--
gcc-porting,
Le dimanche 27 juillet 2008 à 02:12 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras a écrit :
> Not that I have ever seen a package that breaks with --as-needed though.
> Of course that's just me.)
ahah ! now I have an example for you, nemiver. It seems it does the
module loading thingy that was brought up in the rel
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
lik
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 Mar
2008-07-27 00:00:55 Carsten Lohrke napisał(a):
> 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 t
2008-07-26 23:43:53 Gilles Dartiguelongue napisał(a):
> Le samedi 26 juillet 2008 à 21:39 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
> Arahesis a écrit :
> > 2008-07-26 21:35:08 Donnie Berkholz napisał(a):
> > > On 18:37 Sat 26 Jul , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > > > Mark Loeser (Halcy0
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
On Samstag, 26. Juli 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Why are you asking us? He's the QA lead, you should be talking with the
> QA team about this.
Such issues are not up to a self chosen group, but are topic for this list.
Carsten
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message p
Le samedi 26 juillet 2008 à 21:39 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
Arahesis a écrit :
> 2008-07-26 21:35:08 Donnie Berkholz napisał(a):
> > On 18:37 Sat 26 Jul , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > > Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this
> > > polic
Since it is time to get Qt 4.4 into testing, here some information how to get
the dependencies in the ebuilds you maintain, right.
Beforehand: Relying on best_version() or the broken qt4_min_version() stuff
from qt4.eclass is not fine.
- Migrating existing ebuilds requires a dependency like
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:37:06 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
2008-07-26 21:35:08 Donnie Berkholz napisał(a):
> On 18:37 Sat 26 Jul , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > 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
On 18:37 Sat 26 Jul , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 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.
Why
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:54:20 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Respecting LDFLAGS provides also some some degree of optimization.
It's a *very* small degree, and certainly nowhere near on the scale of
the difference made by CFLAGS on some archs.
If CFLAGS only
2008-07-26 01:07:42 Gilles Dartiguelongue napisał(a):
> Le jeudi 24 juillet 2008 à 18:36 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
> Arahesis a écrit :
> > I would like to suggest new policy stating that packages should respect
> > LDFLAGS.
> > Small amount of packages which ignore LDFLAGS should be patch
2008-07-26 02:45:57 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:15:03 + (UTC)
> Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In particular, --as-needed makes a HUGE very practical difference.
> > It may or may not be the wrong answer to the problem in theory, but
> > lacking anything even clo
2008-07-26 18:06:12 Ryan Hill napisał(a):
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:36:28 +0200
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I would like to suggest new policy stating that packages should
> > respect LDFLAGS. Small amount of packages which ignore LDFLAGS should
> > be pat
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:36:28 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to suggest new policy stating that packages should
> respect LDFLAGS. Small amount of packages which ignore LDFLAGS should
> be patched to respect them. Such patches are usually small a
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 03:13:36PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Christian Birchinger wrote:
> >But no matter how wrong i think it is, i usualy respect the
> >upstreams wishes.
>
> If upstream is wrong I think we should help them...
Upstream thinks it's a bad idea not to give the user any possibil
Christian Birchinger wrote:
But no matter how wrong i think it is, i usualy respect the
upstreams wishes.
If upstream is wrong I think we should help them...
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:07:10PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Christian Birchinger wrote:
>> Hello
>> Anyone interested in maintaining further SDLMame updates?
>> Beginning with 0.126 it requires GConf to get a font setting
>> for it's now mandatory debugger.
>> I use a plain XFCE setup and don't
23 matches
Mail list logo
