On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:26:12PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote: > > So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect > > the LDFLAGS. > > yes. IIRC it has been stated on this list before, that a change which > changes the resulting binary always needs to be done in a revbump.
If that's true, that doesn't make sense. Take one extreme case: let's say libgcj, part of gcc, has a problem with LDFLAGS, and you fixed it. But the majority of people using gcc don't even turn on java support, those that do have a working libgcj already, and gcc can easily take hours to build. Should you revbump? There are always exceptions. Maybe you don't consider LDFLAGS support in general one of those exceptions, but clearly some others do. You can't just tell them "there are no exceptions" when there are, you need to explain why this isn't a valid reason to make an exception. My impression, too, is that few people care enough about LDFLAGS support to want to rebuild packages for it, so I would not have bumped either, but I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong.
