Bug 181790 – dev-libs/nspr-4.7: Ignored LDFLAGS: /usr/lib/nspr/lib{plc,nspr,plds}4.so.7

• Status: RESOLVED FIXED
• Product: Gentoo Linux

[Description Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis (RETIRED) 2007-06-12 16:50:18 UTC]

### List of files built with LDFLAGS ignored ###
/usr/lib/nspr/libplc4.so.6
/usr/lib/nspr/libnspr4.so.6
/usr/lib/nspr/libplds4.so.6
### End of list                              ###

Ignoring LDFLAGS increases files sizes and decreases performance.

[Comment 1 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) 2007-06-12 17:48:22 UTC]

OK, that was about enough.

1/ Use common sense when filing bugs (like, what about mailing gentoo-dev mailing list first and asking about the best course of action here?
2/ If you have a patch, submit it *upstream* unless this is a *Gentoo-specific* issue.

[Comment 2 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis (RETIRED) 2008-02-12 17:20:49 UTC]

### List of files containing .hash section ###
/usr/lib/nspr/libplds4.so.7
/usr/lib/nspr/libplc4.so.7
/usr/lib/nspr/libnspr4.so.7
### End of list                            ###

[Comment 3 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis (RETIRED) 2008-02-12 23:58:52 UTC]

Created attachment 143372 [details, diff]
nspr-4.7.1-respect-LDFLAGS.patch

[Comment 4 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis (RETIRED) 2008-02-12 23:59:11 UTC]

I have attached the patch.

[Comment 5 Mark Loeser (RETIRED) 2008-03-08 22:38:08 UTC]

We currently don't have any policy that says we can't ignore LDFLAGS.  I'd much rather this be discussed on g-dev@ before we start enforcing a policy that doesn't exist.  Thanks

[Comment 6 Raúl Porcel (RETIRED) 2008-08-13 19:25:59 UTC]

Fixed