Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1528 bytes --]

On Sat, 31 May 2008 07:38:12 +0530
"Nirbheek Chauhan" <nirbheek.chauhan@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) You say the benefits haven't been pointed out, while several posts
> have already done so. You seem to be the only one pretending to be
> unaware of them.

No no no. The benefits described would be obtained by fixing libtool.
What you get from as-needed is a half-arsed sometimes-working subset of
those benefits. as-needed is not the fix for the libtool problems.

> 2) The "expense of breaking things" is completely unqualified in your
> post. Here's some context: "expense" is minimal since the problem is
> easily fixable, and "breaking things" is the list of bugs on the
> tracker bug -- 19 with most of them already having patches that just
> need to be committed

And all of which are utterly pointless.

> 3) You say fixing libtool is the correct solution but you don't say
> why or explain how. You don't give any information at all, and due to
> the non-existant evidence, I am going to take the statement with a
> fist of salt.

I'm assuming everyone contributing to this thread knows exactly what the
libtool problems are... But from the looks of things, plenty of people
are quite happy to jump in and yell when they don't have the slightest
clue what the root problem is, what as-needed changes, what as-needed
breaks or how as-needed is unrelated to the problem. And unfortunately,
it looks like those people are the ones that're going to be making the
decisions.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]