From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OTG9M-0001qd-36 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:21:32 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 72299E0BE8; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:21:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pv0-f181.google.com (mail-pv0-f181.google.com [74.125.83.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3588BE0BC5 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:21:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pvc22 with SMTP id 22so451129pvc.40 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:21:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=FzTPh4NQl7ErtcXA0qarZYMUIvQNM5FtZMrcKVMxfI0=; b=HkBBUqYnVIYHb3paFXq28tYIbmJlKY3HwGjCu3VLtiqXilECatoy/PY5QmgP5GjpMj E9bqxcLxf0Uo0DjgwUiDfzSUwZjpkGRnpL52a5FYROgaHEZan7xPs4VV5TJdbhjimTa4 PhagITa/NfTvio1RImXOLk1l1OmS6UcddYnD4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=IEMM61QaJOfzegxyddaG+tDMBzw9LjKVsuQd6ubOnwI/40r3sr3J5HWlcNhJPtDQD9 TbbmAV9AxLv02RKoB5B+Ix+jLJoRJFZiRAcr+Bf+1XUnjxXw98Awayr+zcLpLReS0C5L 9RLHiDwG5os0r7GNW0aDdohDUhkKmtfgnkvW4= Received: by 10.143.26.21 with SMTP id d21mr5875054wfj.225.1277738466396; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:21:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gmail.com (c-67-171-128-62.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [67.171.128.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w8sm1841938wfd.7.2010.06.28.08.21.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:21:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gmail.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:21:07 -0700 Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:21:07 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults Message-ID: <20100628152107.GA19171@hrair> References: <20100628083559.2c810fda@snowcone> <4C2852F6.30003@gentoo.org> <20100628085119.1631337d@snowcone> <4C285876.4020208@gentoo.org> <20100628091632.14dca3c9@snowcone> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Archives-Salt: df6d9d1f-b1eb-4eef-b832-92664a435f74 X-Archives-Hash: 3f3ffc6fb77f81b372a8c9f9ea6ee611 --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:46:53PM +0100, David Leverton wrote: > This has been pointed > out ever since the issue was first discussed, but some people like to > stick their fingers in their ears and dismiss legitimate technical > arguments as "trolling" and "politics". The issue is some folk are trying to be pragmatic, and some folk are=20 sticking to "it's not the proper long term solution thus don't do it=20 at all". The question shouldn't be "is it long term the right or wrong=20 solution", the question should be "yes it's not perfect, but what is=20 the gain of deploying it?" Literally, do we break more by deploying it then we gain? Is the=20 reduction in intermediate broken packages (and general linkage=20 whonkyness) being mostly sorted worth the cost of some cranky packages=20 breaking from it? That is the question. If the only correct answer is "it must be the=20 right technical solution always" we'd theoretically be running hurd=20 rather than linux after all, nor would the prefix project be in wide=20 usage. Alternatively rather than arguing, someone needs to go out and get=20 some data to back this change (and/or back the stance it causes more=20 damage than it's worth). Personally, I've been running as-needed for a while- while not a fan=20 of it, it's been an overall plus for my usage. The question is if=20 it's an overall gain to deploy globally (iirc fedora/ubuntu are=20 running this way now). ~harring --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkwoveMACgkQsiLx3HvNzgfAHwCgooEyBXbmHv0A7mNfmMUCPYOD oc0AoJ7JC4VGUxPan1XvQgq1X8Kk0PwG =c3Mp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn--