Den Monday 07 July 2008 19:44:46 skrev Adam Williamson:
> On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 19:38 +0200, Oden Eriksson wrote:
> > Den Monday 07 July 2008 19:25:34 skrev Adam Williamson:
> > > On Sun, 2008-07-06 at 15:40 +0200, Oden Eriksson wrote:
> > > > Oden Eriksson <oeriksson@(protected):
> > > > + Revision: 232153
> > > > - use _disable_ld_no_undefined due to build problems
> > >
> > > (For this and libkmfl): I thought the whole point of the underlinking
> > > stuff was that we were supposed to identify and fix the problems,
> > > rather than just work around them by disabling underlinking? For shared
> > > libraries, at least. Or are they not fixable in this case?
> > >
> > > It just seems like installing a test for a problem and then disabling
> > > the test whenever it detects the problem is kind of a wasted effort. :)
> >
> > I think many changelog entries in a row like " - use
> > _disable_ld_no_undefined due to build problems" misleads you into
> > thinking I did it out of laziness or because I don't care, or whenever I
> > detect a problem. Please...
>
> So it was supposed to mean "due to build problems I was not able to
> resolve"? That wasn't clear.
>
> We should probably have a youri list of packages which provide shared
> libraries that are currently using _disable_ld_no_undefined so people
> can track them and have a go at fixing...

What's wrong using _disable_ld_no_undefined with a package that only provides
a library?. If you think that's wrong I want you as detailed as possible
explain to me why I should spend any time with that.


--
Regards // Oden Eriksson