Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 11:27:37 +0300 From: Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> Cc: Daniel Engberg <daniel.engberg.lists@pyret.net>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-main@freebsd.org, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: git: 06601897e5cd - main - framework: reintroduce the feature enabling code Message-ID: <CALH631mGJU4HuVSZW1t5BcFuuLy62giau60h07pRdS9zZ4M4eg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6kivt3yarts23vqyv277vqrw6dhswo4hilbdkspvnaz544mtvc@yiyqgdtnp6y7> References: <202404120754.43C7slbr026326@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <12af8e210220224883a7856115f61be9@mail.infomaniak.com> <6kivt3yarts23vqyv277vqrw6dhswo4hilbdkspvnaz544mtvc@yiyqgdtnp6y7>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 9:47=E2=80=AFAM Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> wr= ote: > > On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 06:11:04AM GMT, Daniel Engberg wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This changes so LTO option is no longer applied to Rust (cargo) ports > > BY DEFAULT causing a regresssion, please fix. > > As it has been three months, nobody complained something was broken so, > I don't think anything is actually broken. Funny, this was exactly my argument when you were reverting my implementati= on. > LTO as are a few other features like SSP are user facing features, not a porters facing options, it means, it's up to the person doing the building to choose wether to enable it or not, it is **not** up to the person porting the software to forcefully enable it. I don't agree with that and talked about it in my writeup [1], which seemingly no one in portmgr@ cared to read. [1] https://reviews.freebsd.org/D44789
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALH631mGJU4HuVSZW1t5BcFuuLy62giau60h07pRdS9zZ4M4eg>