From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K23QF-0000ur-Rb for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 30 May 2008 12:09:28 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C9F63E035D; Fri, 30 May 2008 12:09:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.225]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD06E035D for ; Fri, 30 May 2008 12:09:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id c48so3984285wra.1 for ; Fri, 30 May 2008 05:09:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=qf1XT6iAsvEYi9Lo0VA+M4R8ecUI3ENb8cVL/+MvyUg=; b=CBpJ7k4vJLJtKEuyy/tnULydfqSV1pTitcU7KeM//o8vt1Qv1wOlWwNmHP9GWyX9CP4sMAb8gT3q+YdUlUnEicXMkk0kYSv/kPBms35c4dpsHH+xwc0ewIY1alwPmZaQF7Qgch31bS+M0rh79GWjp++wy0Es3WMHmAqazgEISf4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=o8WEFmZ7U6JOmS///jvDfdWuS4Zv3LPdkIodXbnEnGxfLepT2my42qjiZ0XgBi0YbfGa0Aew8SMUf6zI+hStN3FwRHdvCsv7thCBnMZabSWdeRDTIXvqlQH4LiHO74XXQMQj4Y+jg7sR6sgFYHyHwPKgBJTeDy7vqt+0ZIYcIIo= Received: by 10.100.10.15 with SMTP id 15mr8816794anj.137.1212149365017; Fri, 30 May 2008 05:09:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.11.12 with HTTP; Fri, 30 May 2008 05:09:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3c32af40805300509o7a3c042av8f95f422b02ea39b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 14:09:24 +0200 From: "Santiago M. Mola" Sender: cooldwind@gmail.com To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default? In-Reply-To: <483FA9BE.9040506@gentoo.org> 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: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080529011316.54f0f1f6@sheridan.genone.homeip.net> <20080530070243.dc40e0f7.genone@gentoo.org> <1212130551.29080.118.camel@camobap> <483FA9BE.9040506@gentoo.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5628d4c9554be36f X-Archives-Salt: 2c006fcd-72dd-494e-aaab-705b72791ff1 X-Archives-Hash: b35893eba8e4c1f052f6645c045cb1fb On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Mike Auty wrote: > > Peter Volkov wrote: > | Is there any reason why --as-needed is not enabled "by default"? > > There's still about 18 open bugs on the tracker[1] for it. You can see > how many problems it had been causing by the huge number of blocking bugs. > > I've been using it for a pretty long time now (probably a couple weeks > after Diego first blogged about it) and don't have many problems at all > (now), but every once in a while a version bump or a new package will > just fail to compile properly and the problem leads back to as-needed. > I'm not sure whether ~arch users would be able to catch all the > as-needed bugs before they hit stable, so I couldn't say whether it > should be enabled by default or not. That's not a problem at all. If we choose to support --as-needed by default we'd get testing from maintainers when adding new ebuilds, and from arch teams before ebuilds hit stable. --as-needed breaking legitimate code is a problem, though. I wonder if we have that kind of code in any application in the tree and if we have some way to detect it. Regards, -- Santiago M. Mola Jabber ID: cooldwind@gmail.com -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list