On 26/06/13 23:14, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 26.06.2013 15:02, schrieb Allan McRae:
On 26/06/13 22:47, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 26.06.2013 07:01, schrieb Allan McRae:
One reason for this is that we needed to patch ltmain.sh to properly handle -Wl,-as-needed, because the Arch package maintainer refused to do so unless upstream accepts!
So, you are patching ltmain.sh in pacman, because you refused to patch libtool in Arch to work properly with Arch?
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/libtool/ -> Maintainer
Yes - one project I am upstream in, the other I am not.
You complained above that the Arch Linux package maintainer for libtool refused to fix it in Arch. Since you are the package maintainer, and this is a global problem for Arch, why don't you fix it there? Is it really a better choice to fix every package instead of just patching libtool?
There might have been an element of humour intended in my complaint about the Arch package maintainer... Anyway, I refuse to use any (non-trivial) patch that has not been accepted by upstream in an Arch package. Especially given such patches have been floating around for 8 years. However, I consider overlinking in pacman to be critical as it makes soname bumps much more prone to breakage. Given I am upstream here, I can make the decision to include such a patch. Allan