On P, 2008-07-27 at 18:20 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> 2008-07-26 02:56:24 Mart Raudsepp napisał(a):
> > On L, 2008-07-26 at 03:39 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > > Fortunately, the majority of ebuilds/packages are honoring LDFLAGS. Of
> > > course it's kinda difficult
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:45:29 -0500
Jeremy Olexa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 b
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
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
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
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 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 L, 2008-07-26 at 03:39 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> Fortunately, the majority of ebuilds/packages are honoring LDFLAGS. Of
> course it's kinda difficult to always check if a package honors it or
> not. But it's a good idea to file a bug for every package that does not
> honor it (witho
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 close to as workable right now, that alone is
> IMO reason en
17 matches
Mail list logo
