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 1K2HAv-0003IM-Q0 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 31 May 2008 02:50:34 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C847AE042C; Sat, 31 May 2008 02:50:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nlpi001.prodigy.net (nlpi001.sbcis.sbc.com [207.115.36.30]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4D64E042C for ; Sat, 31 May 2008 02:50:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.42] (adsl-69-155-134-34.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net [69.155.134.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by nlpi001.prodigy.net (8.13.8 smtpauth/dk/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m4V2oTW9025539 for ; Fri, 30 May 2008 21:50:29 -0500 Message-ID: <4840BD09.1060102@p-static.net> Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 21:50:49 -0500 From: Ravi Pinjala User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080504) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?) References: <20080530220743.GH17201@comet> <20080531002644.41d9b7bf@snowcone> <484093C5.90902@gentoo.org> <20080531010259.52b8c105@snowcone> <4840990B.9040909@gentoo.org> <20080531013016.4aceedbb@snowcone> <4840A3EE.30708@gentoo.org> <20080531021748.4dd0b78e@snowcone> <20080531014356.GB6931@seldon.metaweb.com> <20080531025020.7d7da9d7@snowcone> <8b4c83ad0805301908sec8a9dale54c1696b5a0dccc@mail.gmail.com> <20080531031432.24169d4c@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <20080531031432.24169d4c@snowcone> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: a1ba637b-f24e-4868-8adf-103bbd738786 X-Archives-Hash: d0e2cf16761b5dcb003b2494757b69ea Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2008 07:38:12 +0530 > "Nirbheek Chauhan" 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. > Could you explain, for the benefit of us spectators, what these libtool problems are, and what cleaner solution you have in mind? It'd make this whole discussion a lot more comprehensible. --Ravi -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list