Ühel kenal päeval, N, 18.08.2016 kell 23:56, kirjutas Alexis Ballier: > On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 14:20:41 -0700 > Daniel Campbell <z...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On 08/18/2016 06:21 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:13:14 -0400 > > > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > If you just check your packages occassionally to make sure they > > > > build with gold it completely achieves the goal, and it will > > > > actually result in fewer bugs using the non-gold linker as > > > > well. > > > > > > > > > That's what a tinderbox is for. The only QA problem I see here is > > > that QA doesn't automate that kind of checks anymore since Diego > > > left. Maybe QA should ask Toralf to run a ld.gold tinderbox and > > > avoid asking people to randomly test random packages ? > > > > > I dunno, if testing packages that one maintains is as simple as > > reconfiguring a package, testing, and switching back then I don't > > think it's unreasonable to ask us to test our own packages. We're > > supposed to do that already, and for packages whose dependencies > > aren't 100% hashed out, it can help us figure out what the real > > deps > > are. > > > test against... all linkers, all compilers, all libcs, all kernels, > all > userlannds, all useflags, ... ? :) > > > by all means, please do it, but there are things machines are better > at, like ensuring all packages have been tested against gold linker > and > every failure has been reported
The tl;dr did say to switch to ld.gold, but the main point was to actually fix the bugs reported against your packages about it by other developers, users and any future tinderbox runs, instead of ignoring them as something that isn't supposed to matter and very low priority. I think that should be sufficient, and we don't need to all rush to switching to it, as long as we take care of the bugs about it when others notice and file a bug. Though it gives some good benefits when you are able to use it, afaik, so hey, why not use it when you can :) Mart
