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

[Fabian Groffen]

On 02-07-2008 08:23:54 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> >
> > While compiling Mutt on Interix, I was confronted with flock +
> > constants
> > not being defined.  Further inspection of the header file (manpage said
> > it should exist in fcntl.h) revealed the need for _ALL_SOURCE.  Many
> > ebuilds just include flag-o-matic to do append-flags -D_ALL_SOURCE on
> > Interix.  Not being very amused by the beauty of that solution, and
> > looking at the insanity of the Interix headers, what's against just
> > adding -D_ALL_SOURCE in the Interix' profile.bashrc file (with
> > encompassing logic not to add it multiple times)?  Wouldn't that be
> > much
> > saner (and cleaner in the ebuilds)?  Are there packages known to break
> > when _ALL_SOURCE is defined?
>
> 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.


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