On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 20:09 +0200, Oden Eriksson wrote:

> > 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.

I might be wrong, that's why I posted my mail in the first place. But
what I understood from the other mails on this topic is that if you get
an error with the underlinking checks in place when building a package
that includes a shared library, it indicates some kind of bug that
should be fixed in the code: but if what you're building *doesn't* have
any shared libraries, it's not a problem and you can just disable the
checks. As I said, I might be wrong. That's why I'm asking.
--
adamw