On 07/28/2010 06:36 AM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> On 07/27/2010 11:51 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>> 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...
>
> Put that in the dev profile(s) then. :)
> -Jerem
On 07/27/2010 11:51 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
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...
Put that in the dev profile(s) then. :)
-Jeremy
On 07/27/2010 07:51 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:41:36 -0700
> "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/10 7:39 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:29:06 +0200
>>> Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>>>
>>> Is it time yet? I still find a lot of packages that do not even
>
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:41:36 -0700
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 7/27/10 7:39 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:29:06 +0200
> > Tomáš Chvátal 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
On 7/27/10 7:39 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:29:06 +0200
> Tomáš Chvátal 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 problem
On Tuesday 27 of July 2010 16:39:01 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jul
2010 22:29:06 +0200
> Tomáš Chvátal 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
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:29:06 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal 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.
jer
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:44:36 -0700
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> This might be a bit unclear to less savvy users. How about just make
> sure your LDFLAGS in /etc/make.conf contains "-Wl,--as-needed" or is unset?
> Instead of saying "overriding", I'd say something more similar to
> "disabling --as-
I like that one better.
Both proposals leave a question open to me, though:
Do I understand correctly that I could integrate the in-profile value with
LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS} foo bar"
in /etc/make.conf? Maybe that's something people want to do. If so
maybe add a hint?
Sebastian
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:29:06PM +0200, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Hi guys,
> See the attachment for the draft.
>
> Please improve it to be an actual English :P
How about:
-Wl,--as-needed has been added to the default profile's LDFLAGS.
This option optimizes the linking process, only linking bina
On 7/26/10 1:29 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Title: --as-needed enabled in default profiles
> Author: Tomáš Chvátal
> Content-type: text/plain
> Posted: 2010-07-26
> Revision: 1
> News-Item-Format: 1.0
>
> Starting today all applications emerged on your system are linked
> together with addition
On 26-07-2010 22:29:06 +0200, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Starting today all applications emerged on your system are linked
> together with additional LDFLAGS="-Wl,--as-needed". This option
> allows us to avoid linking extra libraries into the final binary
> improving startup times and more importantly
12 matches
Mail list logo
