https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805928 --- Comment #15 from Artem <ego.cordatus@xxxxxxxxx> --- No prob at all. :) I almost always try to build first without LTO and then with LTO and trying to see at least any difference in footprint since not always possible to do some benchmarks. And TBH this is not the case with 'planner' and it even produce a little bit bigger binary with LTO which is very very rare case, at least in my experience. So i started unwittingly to think that you did your own research and found this and instead of just saying this clearly asking meta questions. Usually in similar Vala apps not to much profit from enabling LTO but still some. Anyway i already rebuilt it (for Rawhide at this moment) without LTO. Just some interesting facts: few libs which i tested have up to 40% profit in terms of produced binary size. Asked many times compiler guys and they said that nowadays the only drawback with LTO is that it can produce less useful debug info which can make things harder to debug. As for naming package this is first elementary package which i named with elementary prefix and only because of we already have package with 'planner' name. And i really didn't know in what cases some elementary apps should use this prefix until you explain. I found one your package 'elementary-code' and i though you named it like that for the same reason because there is already exist package 'code'. :) For sure we need to rename it to 'planner' then, but there is still a problem that 'planner' already build for F31... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
