Den Monday 07 July 2008 20:15:07 skrev Adam Williamson:
> 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.

You are mostly correct, but, what if you get that build error from a software
that *is* a library, solely?

That brings up my second question. This under/overlinking "problem" is pretty
new. Most softwares in our distro wasn't designed to be built this way. So,
would you rather see a rebuilt distro or wait for one that is (maybe) in
2010?

--
Regards // Oden Eriksson