2008-07-26 02:56:24 Mart Raudsepp napisał(a):
On L, 2008-07-26 at 03:39 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
Fortunately, the majority of ebuilds/packages are honoring LDFLAGS. Of
course it's kinda difficult to always check if a package honors it or
not. But it's a good idea to file a bug
2008-07-27 05:45:29 Jeremy Olexa napisał(a):
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
It will at least allow QA team to fix such bugs where patches are already
available.
So, if bugs are being fixed
Not all of them.
Are bugs being ignored or RESOLVED, WONTFIX?
These bugs which aren't
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:45:29 -0500
Jeremy Olexa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
It will at least allow QA team to fix such bugs where patches are
already available.
So, if bugs are being fixed why is there a need to fix something that
isn't broken
On P, 2008-07-27 at 18:20 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
2008-07-26 02:56:24 Mart Raudsepp napisał(a):
On L, 2008-07-26 at 03:39 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
Fortunately, the majority of ebuilds/packages are honoring LDFLAGS. Of
course it's kinda difficult to
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:36:28 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to suggest new policy stating that packages should
respect LDFLAGS. Small amount of packages which ignore LDFLAGS should
be patched to respect them. Such patches are usually small and
2008-07-26 18:06:12 Ryan Hill napisał(a):
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:36:28 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to suggest new policy stating that packages should
respect LDFLAGS. Small amount of packages which ignore LDFLAGS should
be patched to
2008-07-26 02:45:57 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:15:03 + (UTC)
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In particular, --as-needed makes a HUGE very practical difference.
It may or may not be the wrong answer to the problem in theory, but
lacking anything even close to as
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:54:20 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Respecting LDFLAGS provides also some some degree of optimization.
It's a *very* small degree, and certainly nowhere near on the scale of
the difference made by CFLAGS on some archs.
If CFLAGS only
On 18:37 Sat 26 Jul , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this policy
doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about LDFLAGS being ignored are
usually fixed, so I ask for the formal enacting of this policy.
Why
2008-07-26 21:35:08 Donnie Berkholz napisał(a):
On 18:37 Sat 26 Jul , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this
policy
doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about LDFLAGS being ignored are
usually fixed,
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:37:06 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that
this policy doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about
LDFLAGS being ignored are usually fixed, so I ask for the formal
Le samedi 26 juillet 2008 à 21:39 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
Arahesis a écrit :
2008-07-26 21:35:08 Donnie Berkholz napisał(a):
On 18:37 Sat 26 Jul , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this
policy
On Samstag, 26. Juli 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Why are you asking us? He's the QA lead, you should be talking with the
QA team about this.
Such issues are not up to a self chosen group, but are topic for this list.
Carsten
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message
On Samstag, 26. Juli 2008, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
Um, this already is the policy. We've always fixed bug reports about
LDFLAGS being ignored.
Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this
policy doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about
2008-07-26 23:43:53 Gilles Dartiguelongue napisał(a):
Le samedi 26 juillet 2008 à 21:39 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
Arahesis a écrit :
2008-07-26 21:35:08 Donnie Berkholz napisał(a):
On 18:37 Sat 26 Jul , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA
2008-07-27 00:00:55 Carsten Lohrke napisał(a):
On Samstag, 26. Juli 2008, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
Um, this already is the policy. We've always fixed bug reports about
LDFLAGS being ignored.
Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:00:55 +0200
Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Afaik it has always been the way that *sane* LDFLAGS are to be
respected, but exceptions exist of course and it's up to the
maintainer to mangle or clear your LDFLAGS, if deemed necessary. I'd
like to know, why Mark
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:00:55 +0200
Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Afaik it has always been the way that *sane* LDFLAGS are to be
respected, but exceptions exist of course and it's up to the
maintainer to mangle or clear your LDFLAGS, if deemed necessary. I'd
like
Le dimanche 27 juillet 2008 à 02:12 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras a écrit :
Not that I have ever seen a package that breaks with --as-needed though.
Of course that's just me.)
ahah ! now I have an example for you, nemiver. It seems it does the
module loading thingy that was brought up in the
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:12:13 +0300
Nikos Chantziaras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not that I have ever seen a package that breaks with --as-needed
though. Of course that's just me.
Well, then, behold:
http://tinyurl.com/5jvkm9
Now you have. Enjoy. :)
--
gcc-porting,
Ryan Hill wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:12:13 +0300
Nikos Chantziaras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not that I have ever seen a package that breaks with --as-needed
though. Of course that's just me.
Well, then, behold:
http://tinyurl.com/5jvkm9
Now you have. Enjoy. :)
Then I must be lucky. I
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
It will at least allow QA team to fix such bugs where patches are already
available.
So, if bugs are being fixed why is there a need to fix something that
isn't broken with regards to a policy _needed_ to enforce this action?
Are bugs being ignored
Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
Le jeudi 24 juillet 2008 à 18:36 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
Arahesis a écrit :
I would like to suggest new policy stating that packages should respect LDFLAGS.
Small amount of packages which ignore LDFLAGS should be patched to respect them.
Such patches are
Nikos Chantziaras [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:54:07 +0300:
Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
Le jeudi 24 juillet 2008 à 18:36 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
Arahesis a écrit :
I would like to suggest new policy stating that packages
Duncan wrote:
Nikos Chantziaras [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:54:07 +0300:
Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
Le jeudi 24 juillet 2008 à 18:36 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
Arahesis a écrit :
I would like to suggest new policy stating that
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:15:03 + (UTC)
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In particular, --as-needed makes a HUGE very practical difference.
It may or may not be the wrong answer to the problem in theory, but
lacking anything even close to as workable right now, that alone is
IMO reason enough
On L, 2008-07-26 at 03:39 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
Fortunately, the majority of ebuilds/packages are honoring LDFLAGS. Of
course it's kinda difficult to always check if a package honors it or
not. But it's a good idea to file a bug for every package that does not
honor it (without
27 matches
Mail list logo
