Summary: | Linking is braindamage, apps break on upgrade | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | John Richard Moser <nigelenki> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Gentoo Linux bug wranglers <bug-wranglers> |
Status: | RESOLVED CANTFIX | ||
Severity: | major | CC: | avenj, mr_bones_ |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | x86 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
John Richard Moser
2004-03-29 19:56:38 UTC
We can't patch every Makefile in Portage to link elsewhere. I realize that. Notice the last paragraph/sentence of the commnent. It's just frustrating is all. You could TRY to patch major ones once in a while (especially wget) that can potentially waste the core system, and ask the developers to please take the patches. If Python or wget goes out from underneath you, you need to mess with a rescue package for portage. If bzip2 or tar goes (that probably wouldn't happen. . .) you're screwed. But yes, you are right. It's too much work to fix other peoples' stuff constantly, and it's not really your responsibility. Why don't you submit some patches instead of just telling us about it? Technical question here. Most of this stuff is linked by `gcc -lfoo -lbar -lbaz biz.o qux.o qax.o -o foobar`, right? Would that make this a binutils issue, rather than a makefile issue? I could believe that ld would resolve symlinks one level, or something. If this is true, then it'd be a binutils problem, in which case I should figure out who the heck puts those out and go bug them. I'll leave this as resolved cantfix for now. I'm not taking up any coding project to resolve this. |