5.0 pre2 (20031004) success.

Greg Schafer gschafer at zip.com.au
Mon Oct 6 20:32:16 PDT 2003

On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 08:00:05PM -0700, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Apparently, this is also not a discussion list, but rather a "state 
> the indisputable facts" list. OK.

Glad to see you've seen the light :-)

> >
> >I agree with your clarifying statement, and Tushar's comments. that blindly
> >overriding LDFLAGS on the make command line is dangerous. Setting LDFLAGS 
> >in
> >the environment or before the configure line is 100% safe in my experience.
> >
> I agree that it's safe, my point was that it does not really do the 
> whole job, though. If the goal of the optimization was to produce 
> minimal size binaries (as the LFS book already does), then using 
> LDFLAGS=-s will only get you part of the way there. Any package that 
> produces a shared library and includes debug symbols in the library is 
> not going to be affected by this (if it was affected, all the symbols 

Agreed. Most makefiles I've seen (and those produced by the automess) won't
put the LDFLAGS onto the link line for shared libs.

Anyway, the original statement of "This will cause you problems,
guaranteed." seems to be moot now. Hopefully there is now no confusion and
all is good with the world :-)


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list