Excerpts from Yann Rouillard's message of Sat Aug 25 10:55:28 -0400 2012: Hi Yann,
> > How do you envision this check being implemented? As a positive > > or negative check? > > Well I think negative check is a better way to make sure direct > binding is enabled in packages ;) Besides it's the way checkpkg > works, doesn't it ? Yes, I'm just thinking about a transition phase where it will be really noisy (as you mentioned). If it's the way we're going to go though, the negative check is proper and to be overridden by maintainers if the package doesn't comply. > Of course, maintainers will be able to override the check (like > other checkpkg tests), but at least they will need to do it on > purpose. > > > > 2. enable Direct Binding manually for a reduced set of packages > > (at least > my packages :) ) > (we just have to pass "-Bdirect" to > > SUN ld) > > > > I see you're doing this already! +1 > > > > Want to join me on this so we have a wider packages set ? :) Sure. I'll toggle it on for a few packages as I rebuild them in the next while. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
