On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 01:59 +0100, Milos Jakubicek wrote: > Also I have really doubts what concerns upstreamability of the necessary > changes in packages. Especially if other distributions will (???) > continue shipping ld with the traditional semantics, this means hours of > headache discussions with upstream not willing to accept the patch. I may be misunderstanding, but I believe this is the same thing Mandriva refers to as underlinking: http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Underlinking if so, Mandriva has been enforcing the fixing of this type of error for a couple of years now (by having --as-needed and --no-undefined in the default ld flags). This has a few implications: a) yes, it clearly is practical to maintain a distro this way b) in many cases where a Fedora package has this problem, it'll be possible to take a patch from Mandriva c) some upstreams will be used to dealing with this, since it's been brought up by Mandriva I did upstream several underlinking patches I wrote while maintaining Mandriva packages; I didn't have any problems getting upstreams to accept them. If they weren't already aware of why it was a good idea to fix underlinking issues, they always understood after being pointed to the Mandriva Wiki page. I believe Debian's checking scripts also note underlinking issues as a 'warning'-type thing (i.e. they notify the packager and suggest it should be fixed, but don't fail the build). IMBW on that one, though. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
