Re: Bug#553936: FTBFS with binutils-gold
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I thought people were supposed to discuss it on -devel@ before starting
> a MBF?
What is a MBF?
> Anyway, ways you could have made it better:
> - provide a step by step guide to reproduce the problem
> - use a usertag to follow all the bugs
> - provide a link to a wiki page where you would have put more info about
> solving the common problems.
> > Tried to build your package and it fails to build with GNU binutils-gold.
> > The important difference is that --no-add-needed is the default behavior
> > of of GNU binutils-gold. Please provide all needed libraries to the
> > linker when building your executables.
> Since this obviously breaks lots of packages, what about changing the
> default in binutils-gold instead?
I am not sure but do you think that it is a good way to link against a library
without specify that you link against it?
What I am currently testing is if there are crashes/segfaults possible when
linking with binutils-gold. But it seems that many packages doesn't create
problems for binutils-gold, but fail to build because they rely on the fact
that other libraries link against the libraries. So when they stop to link
against them the build of the "unrelated" executable would break (as it
breaks right now with --no-add-needed or binutils-gold).
So things I could do is: ignore the fact that they don't specify the libraries
which must be linked to work and wait until binutils-gold replaces old ld/old
ld switches to more sane default/third party library stops to link against the
needed library - or report the problem and let the maintainer decide what to
I choose the latter one because I think that most maintainers don't know about