On 08/14/2010 02:35 PM, Duncan wrote:
User perspective here...
For LDFLAGS, given the new --as-needed default, I'd prefer the rev-bump.
Yes, it requires a rebuild, but the rebuilds will occur as the bugs are
fixed so it's a few at a time for people who keep reasonably updated
(every month or more frequently). The alternative is triggering a several-
hundred-package rebuild when some base library package updates, because
all those LDFLAGS respecting changes weren't rev-bumped and the user's
installed set is still ignoring them, and thus --as-needed.
Interesting - I was looking at it in the opposite way.
Not having as-needed means that I /might/ have to rebuild that one
package unnecessarily at some point in the future - if it isn't upgraded
first for some other reason.
Rev-bumping the build means that I /will/ have to rebuild that one
package for certain - right now.
I think we can all at least agree that this is a gray area as far as the
INTENT of the (apparently unwritten) policy goes.
I would like to echo Markos's comment that having policies written down,
if only to point stubborn maintainers to them, would be helpful. The
other reason to have them written is so that they go through some kind
of review, and there is some way of challenging them if they no longer
make sense.
In any case, I think we're making a pretty big deal about a pretty small
issue - we can probably all afford to think about this a little more and
move on...
Rich
