Bug#735182: RFS: fuseloop/1.0.1-1 ITP -- loopback mount using FUSE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 01/25/2014 05:24 AM, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Quoting The Wanderer (2014-01-22 15:14:34)
>
>> Do things still work fine in Debian when using ld.gold (by
>> installing the binutils-gold package) rather than ld.bfd? I know
>> there's an important difference in ld.gold related to --as-needed
>> (or possibly to - --no-as-needed, I don't recall offhand).
>
> I dont think the binutils-gold package exists anymore. binutils-gold
> seems to be provided by the binutils package which now seems to ship
> /usr/bin/ld.gold
I hadn't noticed, but you're right, it's only in stable now. (Even the
stable package claims that it only installs the diversion of ld to
ld.gold, so it's possible that ld.gold was always provided by binutils
directly; I haven't dug into the history here.)
That might mean my attempted recall was wrong, or that plans have
changed since the last I heard about it. It's still probably good
practice to make sure things build both ways, though.
> Do you happen to know an easy, undisruptive way to test with ld.gold?
That depends.
The most general way I can think of would be to set up an alternatives
group for ld, define ld.bfd and ld.gold as the two alternatives, and
then switch back and forth in between tests; however, that's a
system-wide change, which might not qualify as non-disruptive.
Depending on your package's build system, there might be a configure
option or an environment variable to specify what ld to use. That would
be non-disruptive, since it's local rather than system-wide, but it's
also not universally applicable.
- --
The Wanderer
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=817s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: