Thomas Schwinge, le Wed 04 Apr 2012 22:46:34 +0200, a écrit :
> > > I'm still open to being convinced otherwise.
> >
> > Well, the thing is: we need to patch a fair number of applications
> > then (Xorg, gdb, ...)
>
> But that's already mostly it, isn't it?
Possibly. We might just have commit ac
Hi!
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:20:00 +0200, Samuel Thibault
wrote:
> Roland McGrath, le Tue 29 Mar 2011 15:11:59 -0700, a écrit :
> > That's the --no-add-needed default. Some systems have gone to passing that
> > in the standard ld command from gcc, even using BFD ld (i.e. Fedora has).
>
> Debian
> Well, the thing is: we need to patch a fair number of applications
> then (Xorg, gdb, ...) since the dependency used to be brought in
> automatically (even explicitly, in the case of libc.a), so it looked
> like it was a libc-provided feature.
Well, it was. I'm just rethinking the decision made
Note that rol...@redhat.com is an obsolete address.
I've redirected the CC to bug-hurd, since this is a Hurd-only issue
that needs discussion.
That's the --no-add-needed default. Some systems have gone to passing that
in the standard ld command from gcc, even using BFD ld (i.e. Fedora has).
I ac
Roland McGrath, le Tue 29 Mar 2011 15:34:45 -0700, a écrit :
> > Well, the thing is: we need to patch a fair number of applications
> > then (Xorg, gdb, ...) since the dependency used to be brought in
> > automatically (even explicitly, in the case of libc.a), so it looked
> > like it was a libc-pr
Roland McGrath, le Tue 29 Mar 2011 15:11:59 -0700, a écrit :
> Note that rol...@redhat.com is an obsolete address.
Oops, I indeed took an old mail without checking the actual address.
> That's the --no-add-needed default. Some systems have gone to passing that
> in the standard ld command from g
