On 01/18/2012 01:56 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
if you want some touch nuggets to tackle, take a look at the openssl ebuild.
its generation of static archives are less than ideal because the build system
creates one set of objects (all built with PIC), then produces a lib.so and
lib.a from that sin
On Wednesday 18 January 2012 06:42:37 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 01/18/2012 01:40 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 23 October 2011 09:50:04 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> >> On Sonntag 23 Oktober 2011 15:34:30 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >>> If you only wanted to remove these files, you are free
On 01/18/2012 01:40 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 23 October 2011 09:50:04 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
On Sonntag 23 Oktober 2011 15:34:30 Samuli Suominen wrote:
If you only wanted to remove these files, you are free to use
INSTALL_MASK locally instead of downgrading the quality of tree.
D
On Sunday 23 October 2011 13:34:20 Duncan wrote:
> Interestingly enough, unless I've misunderstood, this issue would be
> affected by the recent security-based -fPIC/-fPIE on amd64 by default
> discussion as well, since if everything (including static libs) were
> built with at least -fPIC as requi
On Sunday 23 October 2011 09:50:04 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> On Sonntag 23 Oktober 2011 15:34:30 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > If you only wanted to remove these files, you are free to use
> > INSTALL_MASK locally instead of downgrading the quality of tree.
> >
> > Do you have any idea how much tim
Andreas K. Huettel posted on Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:50:04 +0200 as excerpted:
> I'd like to get my standards up to speed, so may I respectfully ask-
> what is,
> apart from link time, the Gentoo-user-visible difference between *
> removing the .a files in the ebuild * and not building them in the fir
On 10/23/2011 05:01 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> 2011/10/23 Samuli Suominen :
>> On 10/23/2011 04:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Samuli Suominen
>>> wrote:
On 10/23/2011 03:00 PM, Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) wrote:
> scarabeus11/10/23 12:00:55
>
>
On 10/23/2011 04:57 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>
>> If you only wanted to remove these files, you are free to use
>> INSTALL_MASK locally instead of downgrading the quality of tree.
>
> How is this a quality issue? Why do we have a static-l
2011/10/23 Samuli Suominen :
> On 10/23/2011 04:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Samuli Suominen
>> wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2011 03:00 PM, Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) wrote:
scarabeus 11/10/23 12:00:55
Modified: ChangeLog cdparanoia-3.10.2-r
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> If you only wanted to remove these files, you are free to use
> INSTALL_MASK locally instead of downgrading the quality of tree.
How is this a quality issue? Why do we have a static-libs USE flag is
packages can't use it to determine wh
On Sonntag 23 Oktober 2011 15:34:30 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> If you only wanted to remove these files, you are free to use
> INSTALL_MASK locally instead of downgrading the quality of tree.
>
> Do you have any idea how much time me, and aballier spent to make
> cdparanoia's build system as clean
On 10/23/2011 04:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 10/23/2011 03:00 PM, Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) wrote:
>>> scarabeus11/10/23 12:00:55
>>>
>>> Modified: ChangeLog cdparanoia-3.10.2-r3.ebuild
>>> Log:
>>> Bump to eapi4
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 10/23/2011 03:00 PM, Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) wrote:
>> scarabeus 11/10/23 12:00:55
>>
>> Modified: ChangeLog cdparanoia-3.10.2-r3.ebuild
>> Log:
>> Bump to eapi4 and punt static libs.
>
> Time to revert this commit
On 10/23/2011 03:00 PM, Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) wrote:
> scarabeus11/10/23 12:00:55
>
> Modified: ChangeLog cdparanoia-3.10.2-r3.ebuild
> Log:
> Bump to eapi4 and punt static libs.
Time to revert this commit as I don't see anything in the ebuild that
disables building the
14 matches
Mail list logo
