On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 06:57:50AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > > The usefulness of supporting --as-needed isn't because of Ubuntu. It's > > > because switching --as-needed on across the board > > > > I think it would be better send all our upstreams patches for their > > build systems than to work around all the bugs in them. Lets be honest > > here, IIRC any use of --as-needed is a workaround for over-inflated > > DT_NEEDED and fixing those upstream benefits the wider free software > > community, which we pledged in Social Contract item 2. > > Linking in the correct order is not a workaround; it's being correct. > Sufficiently portable upstreams already get it right since at least some > traditional Unix systems already required linking in the correct order, > so this is not a new thing. ... or when linking with static libs. > I obviously have no objection to sending link-order patches upstream, > but realistically this sort of thing only gets fixed across the board if > driven by distributions, and the sensible way to track how far we've got > is to fix it in the distribution. Not to mention dead upstreams. Does anyone have some estimates about how many packages have dead upstreams? -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature