RE: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] Interix _ALL_SOURCE

[Markus Duft]

>
> On 02-07-2008 08:23:54 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> > >
<snip>
> >
> > I guess there where packages refusing to build with _ALL_SOURCE, but
> I can't think of a single one. After all it shouldn't be too much work
> to get those to build with _ALL_SOURCE then I think.
>
> The inverse (strip-flags -D_ALL_SOURCE) should be possible, but then
> happening quite a lot less, I think...
>
> > So from my POV, enabling should be ok. BUT: that would mean that
> packages will possibly change behavior, which means that eventually
> nothing has to stay compatible to the current builds. This is not a
> blocker I think, but we have to remember that it would be better to re-
> bootstrap most of the things, after this change, to keep everything
> consistent.
>
> What do you mean?  I would just enable it, rebuild system (wait for +- 2
> days) if that's ok, commit it, and then remove all append-flags
> -D_ALL_SOURCE stuff.  People having a prefix shouldn't notice that,
> should they?  New packages they install just should build, and I hope no
> upstream is so stupid to put #ifdef _ALL_SOURCE in their headers like
> Interix does.  Quick grepping doesn't show anything like a changing
> definition or something.

I meant that changing the define makes various configure scripts find different things, and thus may enable (or disable) different code paths, which _could_ in some stupid cases confuse already merged packages, or the new ones, since it expects something from the merged packages they don't provide, since at build time those things weren't there.

Still I guess we should enable it, and just see what's happening.

Cheers, Markus

>
>
> --
> Fabian Groffen
> Gentoo on a different level
> --
> gentoo-alt@l.g.o mailing list


-- 
gentoo-alt@l.g.o mailing list