On 26/06/13 23:14, Thomas Bächler wrote: > Am 26.06.2013 15:02, schrieb Allan McRae: >> On 26/06/13 22:47, Thomas Bächler wrote: >>> Am 26.06.2013 07:01, schrieb Allan McRae: >>>> One reason for this is that >>>> we needed to patch ltmain.sh to properly handle -Wl,-as-needed, because >>>> the Arch package maintainer refused to do so unless upstream accepts! >>> >>> So, you are patching ltmain.sh in pacman, because you refused to patch >>> libtool in Arch to work properly with Arch? >>> >>> https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/libtool/ -> Maintainer >>> >> >> Yes - one project I am upstream in, the other I am not. > > You complained above that the Arch Linux package maintainer for libtool > refused to fix it in Arch. Since you are the package maintainer, and > this is a global problem for Arch, why don't you fix it there? Is it > really a better choice to fix every package instead of just patching > libtool? >
There might have been an element of humour intended in my complaint about the Arch package maintainer... Anyway, I refuse to use any (non-trivial) patch that has not been accepted by upstream in an Arch package. Especially given such patches have been floating around for 8 years. However, I consider overlinking in pacman to be critical as it makes soname bumps much more prone to breakage. Given I am upstream here, I can make the decision to include such a patch. Allan
