>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Hasenack <email address hidden> writes:
Andreas> LTO are linker flags, so it's correct to have them exposed
Andreas> in LDFLAGS.
I agree it is correct to have them exposed, but I'm not sure it is
necessary.
The LDFLAGS in krb5-config are LDFLAGS for the downstream user of the
library to use.
I don't think it is a strict requirement that we include more LDFLAGS
than users of krb5-config need.
On the Debian side I'd be open to a patch that minimized LDFLAGS. One
possibility would be to patch krb5-config.in to statically set LDFLAGS
rather than substituting from autoconf if we can find a value that would
be reasonable for all architectures.
Alternatively, Ubuntu can fix in an Ubuntu-specific manner.
>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Hasenack <email address hidden> writes:
Andreas> LTO are linker flags, so it's correct to have them exposed
Andreas> in LDFLAGS.
I agree it is correct to have them exposed, but I'm not sure it is
necessary.
The LDFLAGS in krb5-config are LDFLAGS for the downstream user of the
library to use.
I don't think it is a strict requirement that we include more LDFLAGS
than users of krb5-config need.
On the Debian side I'd be open to a patch that minimized LDFLAGS. One
possibility would be to patch krb5-config.in to statically set LDFLAGS
rather than substituting from autoconf if we can find a value that would
be reasonable for all architectures.
Alternatively, Ubuntu can fix in an Ubuntu-specific manner.