Re: Bug#553936: FTBFS with binutils-gold
On 02/11/09 at 13:50 +0100, Peter Fritzsche wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I thought people were supposed to discuss it on -devel@ before starting
> > a MBF?
> What is a MBF?
mass bug filing.
> > 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?
The question is not about what I think. The question is whether it's
reasonable to expect A LOT of packages to be modified to accomodate
this.
> 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
> do.
>
> I choose the latter one because I think that most maintainers don't know about
> the problems.
Could you provide some numbers on the:
- packages that FTBFS with binutils-gold
- packages that FTBFS with binutils-gold because of --no-add-needed by
default
?
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: