| Summary: | app-misc/beep-1.2.2-r1: Ignored LDFLAGS: /usr/bin/beep | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis (RETIRED) <arfrever> |
| Component: | New packages | Assignee: | Gentoo Shell Tools project <shell-tools> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | minor | ||
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Attachments: |
beep-LDFLAGS.patch
beep-LDFLAGS.patch |
||
|
Description
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis (RETIRED)
2007-06-09 16:55:35 UTC
Maybe you could elaborate on how did you come to the conclusion that your LDFLAGS are ignored, which ones are ignored and where's the problem. The above cryptic stuff unfortunately doesn't explain anything. (In reply to comment #1) > Maybe you could elaborate on how did you come to the conclusion that your > LDFLAGS are ignored Some LDFLAGS can change existence of some sections in ELF files. I have such (at least) 2 flags in my LDFLAGS and one of them always change existence of some sections when isn't ignored. I changed /usr/lib/portage/bin/prepstrip, so that it now additionally runs readelf and grep and copy the output to the log file. I perform some tests (reading emerge logs) and >99,5% of results are correct. > which ones are ignored All. > and where's the problem. Ignoring LDLFAGS increases files sizes and decreases performance. Created attachment 121607 [details, diff]
beep-LDFLAGS.patch
We currently don't have any policy about ignoring LDFLAGS being a bad thing, and adding that policy is outside the scope of this bug (unless it is documented somewhere and I'm missing it). Created attachment 152835 [details, diff]
beep-LDFLAGS.patch
Updated patch.
+ 28 Mar 2009; <solar@gentoo.org> +files/beep-1.2.2-Makefile.patch, + beep-1.2.2-r1.ebuild: + - make beep respect LDFLAGS via basic Makefile cleanups |