Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:30:24 +0200 Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:05:19 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: You appear to be assuming that those pushing the --as-needed solution have it finished. This is far from the case. There's still a lot of work that would need to be done, and that work will have to be carried on by every developer indefinitely as new versions of packages come out. It's a case of the wrong thing requires quite a lot more work before it's ready, and once it's ready everyone will have to carry on working on it forever. Why do you care? Everybody intimately involved in Exherbo and caring about it tells me you forked. I use Gentoo, as you well know from every other time the anyone who ever touches any other distribution is a traitor and should go away and never do anything with Gentoo again line has been tried. I care because it's a huge waste of everyone's time that's all happened because one developer refused to admit that he was in effect advocating the use of a flag in the same category as -ffast-math, even when shown how it would break correct code. If you didn't and are still leeching off our ebuild tree, then please file --as-needed bugs like everyone else, or shut up. Exherbo doesn't and never has used Gentoo ebuilds. Again, as you know fine well. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:23:40AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:30:24 +0200 Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:05:19 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: You appear to be assuming that those pushing the --as-needed solution have it finished. This is far from the case. There's still a lot of work that would need to be done, and that work will have to be carried on by every developer indefinitely as new versions of packages come out. It's a case of the wrong thing requires quite a lot more work before it's ready, and once it's ready everyone will have to carry on working on it forever. Why do you care? Everybody intimately involved in Exherbo and caring about it tells me you forked. I use Gentoo, as you well know from every other time the anyone who ever touches any other distribution is a traitor and should go away and never do anything with Gentoo again line has been tried. I care because it's a huge waste of everyone's time that's all happened because one developer refused to admit that he was in effect advocating the use of a flag in the same category as -ffast-math, even when shown how it would break correct code. This community has shown many times that it doesn't follow your logic. You've made your point, we listened, we rejected it. Please _try_ to understand that you *can't* force your opinion no matter how many times you repeat it. There are times when the majority will reach a decision you think is wrong. If the community feels their choice, albeit not perfect, will help the project, you have to respect that. That is, if you want to be part of the community :) If you didn't and are still leeching off our ebuild tree, then please file --as-needed bugs like everyone else, or shut up. Exherbo doesn't and never has used Gentoo ebuilds. Again, as you know fine well. -- Ciaran McCreesh Please try to restrain yourself from commenting on topics where the community has already reached a decision in the future. Even if you don't like it ;) -- Alex Alexander :: wired Gentoo Developer www.linuxized.com pgpbRsle55BGJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
On Monday 28 June 2010 02:09:44 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Hello everyone, I'm sure at least half of you are thinking Oh no, not this again..., and I agree. However, I'm /also/ thinking Why the heck haven't we done this yet? [...] /If/ you're¹ going to insist on doing this, could you please at least do it in a way that's easy for users to disable? (Profile LDFLAGS as the subject line says obviously qualifies, but there's also been talk of creating gcc-config profiles, modified specs etc.) That way people can choose according to their own preferences for correctness versus convenience etc. [1] Whoever does it, not specifically Nirbheek
Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
On Tuesday 29 June 2010 09:46:52 Alex Alexander wrote: If the community feels their choice, albeit not perfect, will help the project, you have to respect that. That is, if you want to be part of the community :) I see your point to some extent, but the concern is that such decisions might sometimes get made according to who's best at ignoring technical objections rather than what's the best thing to do. It has happened before, although in that case the change was made first, and then when the issue was brought up it got basically ignored for so long that it would be pointless to fix. It would be worrying if things like that started to happen more often. In any case, as mentioned in my other mail, if this particular change is done in a way that's optional for the user, I personally won't be /too/ upset if the rest of you want to do unspeakable things to your systems ;-).
Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 06:25:50PM +0100, David Leverton wrote: On Tuesday 29 June 2010 09:46:52 Alex Alexander wrote: If the community feels their choice, albeit not perfect, will help the project, you have to respect that. That is, if you want to be part of the community :) I see your point to some extent, but the concern is that such decisions might sometimes get made according to who's best at ignoring technical objections rather than what's the best thing to do. It has happened before, although in that case the change was made first, and then when the issue was brought up it got basically ignored for so long that it would be pointless to fix. It would be worrying if things like that started to happen more often. I understand your concern. But this is no such case. We went through the discussion phase already. We're trying to avoid an endless loop. In any case, as mentioned in my other mail, if this particular change is done in a way that's optional for the user, I personally won't be /too/ upset if the rest of you want to do unspeakable things to your systems ;-). This thread is about LDFLAGS+=--as-needed in make.defaults, which can be overridden, so I don't see any issues there either. You're free to change the defaults if you don't like them :) -- Alex Alexander :: wired Gentoo Developer www.linuxized.com pgpt1wNQUPCc1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 06:39:44 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: There's a tracker bug for this, and the problems still remaining are: http://bugs.gentoo.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=129413hide_resolved=1 You've forgotten make --as-needed not break correct code by making the linker ignore explicit instructions from a program author to link two things together. Until you do that, --as-needed is in the same category as -ffast-math. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
On 06/28/2010 10:35 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 06:39:44 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: There's a tracker bug for this, and the problems still remaining are: http://bugs.gentoo.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=129413hide_resolved=1 You've forgotten make --as-needed not break correct code by making the linker ignore explicit instructions from a program author to link two things together. Until you do that, --as-needed is in the same category as -ffast-math. And we can't be held hostage by few packages (marginal cases), that's why we have function called $(no-as-needed) in flag-o-matic.eclass to disable the behavior for these packages. I.e. your point is moot. - Samuli
Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:44:54 +0300 Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: You've forgotten make --as-needed not break correct code by making the linker ignore explicit instructions from a program author to link two things together. Until you do that, --as-needed is in the same category as -ffast-math. And we can't be held hostage by few packages (marginal cases), that's why we have function called $(no-as-needed) in flag-o-matic.eclass to disable the behavior for these packages. Will Gentoo be doing the same for -Ofast and its flags then? After all, most packages work with them, and you can't let the few packages that require standard-compliant behaviour from a compiler hold Gentoo hostage. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
On 06/28/2010 10:51 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:44:54 +0300 Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: You've forgotten make --as-needed not break correct code by making the linker ignore explicit instructions from a program author to link two things together. Until you do that, --as-needed is in the same category as -ffast-math. And we can't be held hostage by few packages (marginal cases), that's why we have function called $(no-as-needed) in flag-o-matic.eclass to disable the behavior for these packages. Will Gentoo be doing the same for -Ofast and its flags then? After all, most packages work with them, and you can't let the few packages that require standard-compliant behaviour from a compiler hold Gentoo hostage. This is not about optimizing but preventing clear breakage, the benefits of asneeded are not under debate here (like already stated in the original message this thread started from) So please stop trying to derail the thread - Samuli
Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: On 06/28/2010 10:51 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Will Gentoo be doing the same for -Ofast and its flags then? After all, most packages work with them, and you can't let the few packages that require standard-compliant behaviour from a compiler hold Gentoo hostage. This is not about optimizing but preventing clear breakage, the benefits of asneeded are not under debate here (like already stated in the original message this thread started from) So please stop trying to derail the thread ++, all of this has been discussed to *death*. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:08:22 +0300 Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: This is not about optimizing but preventing clear breakage, the benefits of asneeded are not under debate here (like already stated in the original message this thread started from) --as-needed does not prevent breakage. It shoves some breakages under the carpet so they're sometimes less visible, and sometimes easier to fix when they happen. However, it does absolutely nothing to address any of the root causes of the breakage, and it does introduce new breakages itself. Had one tenth of the effort that had been put into running around and adding in hacks to work around a deliberately broken toolchain instead been put into fixing libtool and delivering better slotting mechanisms, none of this would be an issue. Or is the policy we've started running towards the cliff and we've already debated the merits of jumping off it, so all you're allowed to discuss now is how we remove the fence? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 06:39:44AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: What needs to be done now is for someone with lots of CPU power to grab the list of packages[1], and build them one-by-one (all versions), adding to a new list all the ebuilds that fail. How to test: LDFLAGS=-Wl,--as-needed emerge -v1 $atom Let's try to make Gentoo less frustrating for our users. 1. http://dev.gentoo.org/~nirbheek/files/as-needed-failures.list -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team I have the CPU power so I will start building those packages and report back here -- Markos Chandras (hwoarang) Gentoo Linux Developer Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org pgpCSgz0WuhUT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
El lun, 28-06-2010 a las 06:39 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan escribió: Hello everyone, I'm sure at least half of you are thinking Oh no, not this again..., and I agree. However, I'm /also/ thinking Why the heck haven't we done this yet? We've been discussing this since 2008, and probably waaay before that too. The entire discussion about whether we should do this or not has already passed, there is NO NEED to have that again. This email is about discussion on what all is *left* before we can do $SUBJECT. What prompted this email? libpng-1.4 and many other upgrades that have left gentoo systems very very broken. We have to resort to random scripts to fix breakage, which reflects very badly on us. Even worse, a lot of users just give up and reinstall their system, or don't upgrade, or just move away from Gentoo. I understand that these kind of breakages are inevitable, but with as-needed, we can reduce their effect *drastically*. Instead of having to rebuild almost their entire system, the user would only need to rebuild packages that directly link(ed) to libpng. I honestly think that we cannot afford to expose our users to any more such upgrades without as-needed in the default linux profile. There's a tracker bug for this, and the problems still remaining are: http://bugs.gentoo.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=129413hide_resolved=1 *Most* of the problems listed there are forced-as-needed problems, which need to be fixed no doubt, but should NOT block addition of --as-needed to LDFLAGS in make.defaults which will not trigger those build failures. What needs to be done now is for someone with lots of CPU power to grab the list of packages[1], and build them one-by-one (all versions), adding to a new list all the ebuilds that fail. How to test: LDFLAGS=-Wl,--as-needed emerge -v1 $atom Once we have the list that fails with normal as-needed, we can fix them, get the fix upstreamed (if possible), and switch the flag on. This action should probably be accompanied by a news item informing users about the change, and encouraging them to report the (rare) bug which might hit them. Let's try to make Gentoo less frustrating for our users. 1. http://dev.gentoo.org/~nirbheek/files/as-needed-failures.list Thanks for taking care signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 06:39:44AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: What needs to be done now is for someone with lots of CPU power to grab the list of packages[1], and build them one-by-one (all versions), adding to a new list all the ebuilds that fail. How to test: LDFLAGS=-Wl,--as-needed emerge -v1 $atom Let's try to make Gentoo less frustrating for our users. 1. http://dev.gentoo.org/~nirbheek/files/as-needed-failures.list I have the CPU power so I will start building those packages and report back here Thanks! My hardware currently consists of one (1) netbook, so I can't help much :) I'll be keeping a list of packages which are known to fail only in forced as-needed mode[1], as well as a list which is known to fail with normal as-needed[2] 1. http://dev.gentoo.org/~nirbheek/files/as-needed-forced-only.list 2. http://dev.gentoo.org/~nirbheek/files/as-needed-normal.list -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 06:39:44AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Hello everyone, ... What needs to be done now is for someone with lots of CPU power to grab the list of packages[1], and build them one-by-one (all versions), adding to a new list all the ebuilds that fail. How to test: LDFLAGS=-Wl,--as-needed emerge -v1 $atom Once we have the list that fails with normal as-needed, we can fix them, get the fix upstreamed (if possible), and switch the flag on. This action should probably be accompanied by a news item informing users about the change, and encouraging them to report the (rare) bug which might hit them. Let's try to make Gentoo less frustrating for our users. I'll help ;) Testing from the bottom up to avoid overlapping with hwoarang. 1. http://dev.gentoo.org/~nirbheek/files/as-needed-failures.list -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team -- Alex Alexander :: wired Gentoo Developer www.linuxized.com pgpiDYoSbYHWA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 01:40:46PM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: On 06/28/2010 10:51 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Will Gentoo be doing the same for -Ofast and its flags then? After all, most packages work with them, and you can't let the few packages that require standard-compliant behaviour from a compiler hold Gentoo hostage. This is not about optimizing but preventing clear breakage, the benefits of asneeded are not under debate here (like already stated in the original message this thread started from) So please stop trying to derail the thread ++, all of this has been discussed to *death*. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team Not taking technical sides in this thread simply because I have no time to argue it at length, BUT: Simply because a topic has been discussed to *death* does not mean the correct answer was obtained, only that a majority agree it is what they want. And while consensus may be enough to be considered 'right' in social situations(politics, etc.), the second the discussion becomes technical the opinion of the masses becomes irrelevant. All that then matters is getting the technical part objectively right, which IS possible, despite what some may say. Regards, Thomas -- - ~Thomas Anderson~ -
Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
On 2010.06.28 14:43, Thomas Anderson wrote: [snip] Not taking technical sides in this thread simply because I have no time to argue it at length, BUT: Simply because a topic has been discussed to *death* does not mean the correct answer was obtained, only that a majority agree it is what they want. And while consensus may be enough to be considered 'right' in social situations(politics, etc.), the second the discussion becomes technical the opinion of the masses becomes irrelevant. All that then matters is getting the technical part objectively right, which IS possible, despite what some may say. Regards, Thomas -- - ~Thomas Anderson~ - All of engineering involves compromise. There is no point in waiting for a perfect solution to an engineering issue if that solution is so far away nobody wants to wait. The compromises become political discussions and we have seen plenty of them already. As its 'the masses' that will implement the solution, not the idealists, its time to go with the compromise that has been hammered out elsewhere ... unless of course the idealists have a patch already. -- Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods trustees
Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:59:21 +0100 Roy Bamford neddyseag...@gentoo.org wrote: All of engineering involves compromise. It's not a question of compromise. It's a question of being right vs being wrong. If one person says that 2 + 2 = 4 and a loud mob screams that their prophet revealed to them in a blog post that 2 + 2 = 6, you don't compromise and say that 2 + 2 = 5. There is no point in waiting for a perfect solution to an engineering issue if that solution is so far away nobody wants to wait. The compromises become political discussions and we have seen plenty of them already. As its 'the masses' that will implement the solution, not the idealists, its time to go with the compromise that has been hammered out elsewhere ... unless of course the idealists have a patch already. You appear to be assuming that those pushing the --as-needed solution have it finished. This is far from the case. There's still a lot of work that would need to be done, and that work will have to be carried on by every developer indefinitely as new versions of packages come out. It's a case of the wrong thing requires quite a lot more work before it's ready, and once it's ready everyone will have to carry on working on it forever. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:05:19 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: You appear to be assuming that those pushing the --as-needed solution have it finished. This is far from the case. There's still a lot of work that would need to be done, and that work will have to be carried on by every developer indefinitely as new versions of packages come out. It's a case of the wrong thing requires quite a lot more work before it's ready, and once it's ready everyone will have to carry on working on it forever. Why do you care? Everybody intimately involved in Exherbo and caring about it tells me you forked. If you didn't and are still leeching off our ebuild tree, then please file --as-needed bugs like everyone else, or shut up. Kindest of kindest of regards, jer
[gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults
Hello everyone, I'm sure at least half of you are thinking Oh no, not this again..., and I agree. However, I'm /also/ thinking Why the heck haven't we done this yet? We've been discussing this since 2008, and probably waaay before that too. The entire discussion about whether we should do this or not has already passed, there is NO NEED to have that again. This email is about discussion on what all is *left* before we can do $SUBJECT. What prompted this email? libpng-1.4 and many other upgrades that have left gentoo systems very very broken. We have to resort to random scripts to fix breakage, which reflects very badly on us. Even worse, a lot of users just give up and reinstall their system, or don't upgrade, or just move away from Gentoo. I understand that these kind of breakages are inevitable, but with as-needed, we can reduce their effect *drastically*. Instead of having to rebuild almost their entire system, the user would only need to rebuild packages that directly link(ed) to libpng. I honestly think that we cannot afford to expose our users to any more such upgrades without as-needed in the default linux profile. There's a tracker bug for this, and the problems still remaining are: http://bugs.gentoo.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=129413hide_resolved=1 *Most* of the problems listed there are forced-as-needed problems, which need to be fixed no doubt, but should NOT block addition of --as-needed to LDFLAGS in make.defaults which will not trigger those build failures. What needs to be done now is for someone with lots of CPU power to grab the list of packages[1], and build them one-by-one (all versions), adding to a new list all the ebuilds that fail. How to test: LDFLAGS=-Wl,--as-needed emerge -v1 $atom Once we have the list that fails with normal as-needed, we can fix them, get the fix upstreamed (if possible), and switch the flag on. This action should probably be accompanied by a news item informing users about the change, and encouraging them to report the (rare) bug which might hit them. Let's try to make Gentoo less frustrating for our users. 1. http://dev.gentoo.org/~nirbheek/files/as-needed-failures.list -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
