https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805928
--- Comment #13 from Artem <ego.cordatus(a)gmail.com> ---
Uh ... that's my point, it's *not* an elementary project.
Seems like we have some misunderstanding there, but that's obviously since you
asking meta questions. So what's exactly a problem here? You still didn't said.
What is a real fix for this specifically case since there already 'planner'
package exist in Fedora? And why you asking like i did something criminal since
*you* as person who responsible for Elementary stack didn't wrote any
guidelines for it?
Fair enough, but the packaging Guidelines still specify that you
should document *why* you're modifying build flags.
In case with LTO this is obvious why and as you already seen other maintainers
not specify too why they build with LTO. But sometimes i document even how much
profit we got there in percentage ratio, see [1]. So i am not "arbitrarily"
building with -flto, as you stated.
The Change about enabling LTO by default also has no bearing on this,
because it would change the *default* build flags, and thereby *by definiton* moving the
goalpost for everybody.
One again, since you asking meta question i have no idea what has bearing on
this and what doesn't for you. And you quoting wrong thesis. Thesis was why i
enabling LTO in *some* my package. Answer was for the same reason that mozjs
did and for the same reason why it was proposed to enable it by default in F32.
And i asked many times other maintainers about LTO specifically and there is
nothing wrong with that.
[1]
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kakoune/blob/master/f/kakoune.spec#_3
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component