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: 1344 bytes --]

On Sat, 31 May 2008 08:28:27 +0530
"Nirbheek Chauhan" <nirbheek.chauhan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Fact: the underlying issue is a libtool bug.
> 
> Fact: It can't be fixed easily and/or in a reasonable time-frame. Else
> someone would've done it -- heck you could've fixed it.

Untrue. The amount of effort that's been wasted messing around with
as-needed could easily have been directed to fixing the root cause
instead. Debian have already done most of the work.

> > Fact: as-needed does not fix this bug. It attempts to work around
> > it.
> 
> Fact: It works. Unlike your vapour-proposal to "fix libtool".

But it doesn't work. And fixing libtool isn't vapour. Read the Debian
patch.

> > Fact: as-needed breaks standard-compliant code.
> 
> Fact: Breakages are rare, code which causes it is discouraged anyway,
> and is fixable in any case. We're not a standards organisation.

You seriously think Gentoo has the manpower to go around making
unnecessary changes to upstream code? And there's nothing in the C++
standard discouraging static initialisation.

> > Fact: fixing the libtool bug would give all the benefits purportedly
> > given by using as-needed, without the drawbacks.
> 
> Fact: It hasn't been done forever, and won't be done anytime soon.

And the Debian patch is...?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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