While we can continually loop around w/ the "--as-needed is evil since c++ does this one odd thing occasionally" argument, why not hear from the folks using it, specifically finding out what breaks in their usage?
Ciaran: yes, just because the tree works now w/ --as-needed doesn't mean that future pkg versions will work. Dumb argument however (has shades of 'the sky is falling') since *every* new version is untested and has the potential to break against our accepted build environments (or to break pre-existing pkgs). That's a known issue, and dealt with (30 days stablization among other things). So... folks have pointed out a benefit to using --as-needed. The benefit itself doesn't seem particularly in dispute, analyze the fallout from it- if the best that is offered is "the spec says otherwise", screw the spec frankly- a .01% breakage w/ 99.99% pkgs getting a positive gain is a strong argument for doing exemptions where needed. Basically, pull out the stats of the breakage. There is *always* risk in changes (new gcc, new bash breaking paludis/portage, etc), someone kindly come back w/ stats backing their specific viewpoint. Arguing over the spec at this point isn't going anywhere, so just drop it. ~harring
pgpxIxoDRqEjB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
