[aur-general] LDFLAGS question

[Allan McRae]

bardo wrote:
> Hi all.
> Recently I've been having fun with the latest pulseaudio quirk: it
> doesn't build because of the --as-needed flag in linking. I don't
> understand linking in depth, but as I understood it there's some
> dependency cycle that gets triggered by the aforementioned ld flag.
> However this doesn't happen when building in a chroot, where the
> package builds fine.
> 
> It isn't the only package where it happens, and I have a handful of
> questions about the correct way to handle this.
> 
> 1. If something like this happens, is it an upstream bug?
> 2. If it builds fine in a chroot there's obviously a software that
> triggers the bug, does it mean I am missing a dependency?
> 3. If a package builds inside a chroot but not outside, should it be
> changed in such a way that it builds everywhere regardless of the
> changes that are to be made? Or should it be left as it is, and
> related bugs closed with "build it in a chroot"?
> 4. What does the absence of the ld flag imply in practical terms? Is
> it just a "nice to have" or has it some real implications?
>

It is probably an addition dep (optional) that is being detected on your 
system and causing the failure.  Personally, I would build in a chroot 
and ignore the issue.  There are plenty of packages that should only be 
built in a chroot due to issues similar to this and _ALL_ packages 
should be built in one anyway.

Allan