On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:52:36 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
remind me again why this matters ? binutils has been defaulting to
hash- style=both for quite a while now.
-mike
Well, I already tried in my P.S. but let me try again: I'm not
suggesting that devs should have more
On Sunday 21 March 2010 02:15:17 Doktor Notor wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:52:36 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
remind me again why this matters ? binutils has been defaulting to
hash- style=both for quite a while now.
Well, I already tried in my P.S. but let me try again: I'm not
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:04:01 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
forcing gnu-only hashes breaks some systems, and is a relatively
newish flag, so it isnt a candidate for global enabling.
-mike
Well... am I really so difficult to understand?
I do *NOT* want it globally enabled... I
On Sunday 21 March 2010 13:13:12 Doktor Notor wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:04:01 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
forcing gnu-only hashes breaks some systems, and is a relatively
newish flag, so it isnt a candidate for global enabling.
-mike
Well... am I really so difficult to understand?
On 03/21/2010 07:04 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
You *only* get the following QA notice w/ LDFLAGS=-Wl,--hash-style=gnu
set:
forcing gnu-only hashes breaks some systems, and is a relatively newish
flag, so it isnt a candidate for global enabling.
-mike
The developer profile target is being
On 21/03/10 18:13, Doktor Notor wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:04:01 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
forcing gnu-only hashes breaks some systems, and is a relatively
newish flag, so it isnt a candidate for global enabling.
-mike
Well... am I really so difficult to
On Sunday 21 March 2010 13:29:50 Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 03/21/2010 07:04 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
You *only* get the following QA notice w/ LDFLAGS=-Wl,--hash-style=gnu
set:
forcing gnu-only hashes breaks some systems, and is a relatively newish
flag, so it isnt a candidate for
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:28:18 +0100
justin j...@gentoo.org wrote:
I am probably the only one, but I really don't like the way you are
talking! Please change that, otherwise I feel to do something against
it!
Having good ideas or pointing out correct things, doesn't give anybody
the right to
On 03/21/2010 07:41 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 21 March 2010 13:29:50 Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 03/21/2010 07:04 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
You *only* get the following QA notice w/ LDFLAGS=-Wl,--hash-style=gnu
set:
forcing gnu-only hashes breaks some systems, and is a relatively
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:46:38 +0100
Doktor Notor notordok...@gmail.com wrote:
The amount of bugs concerning ebuilds that ignore LDFLAGS suggests
that this would be a good idea, b/c it seems a many maintainers are
completely unaware that their ebuilds do not respect LDFLAGS - so I
guess this
On Saturday 20 March 2010 19:46:38 Doktor Notor wrote:
The amount of bugs concerning ebuilds that ignore LDFLAGS suggests
that this would be a good idea, b/c it seems a many maintainers are
completely unaware that their ebuilds do not respect LDFLAGS - so I
guess this needs more visibility.
11 matches
Mail list logo
