Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/traits: traits-3.4.0.ebuild
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:03:53
Message-Id: 20100621040127.GN12490@hrair
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/traits: traits-3.4.0.ebuild by Mike Frysinger
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 06:27:00PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday, June 20, 2010 09:55:39 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > > 2010-06-19 22:53:37 Mike Frysinger napisał(a): > > > On Thursday, June 10, 2010 16:45:29 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar wrote: > > > > 2010-06-10 22:20:44 Nirbheek Chauhan napisał(a): > > > > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar wrote: > > > > > > 2010-06-10 21:27:40 Jeremy Olexa napisał(a): > > > > > >> I see no reason to *not* add a ChangeLog entry here. > > > > > > > > > > > > ChangeLog entries are not required for trivial changes. > > > > > > > > > > A "trivial" change is fixing a typo, or a manifest problem, a missing > > > > > quotation mark, etc. Anything else is not "trivial". > > > > > > > > > > Anything that changes how an ebuild functions, what it does, or the > > > > > installed files (and/or their contents) is NOT a trivial change. > > > > > > > > This commit only removed some compiler warnings. > > > > > > mucking with CFLAGS without documentation is wrong. compiler warnings > > > come and go, so a flag that was relevant one day could be completely > > > extraneous the next. > > > > > > however, especially with strict aliasing, you arent "just fixing > > > warnings", you're changing optimization behavior of gcc to workaround > > > broken C code. this obviously does not fall anywhere near the "trivial" > > > mark. > > > > > > i see you still havent fixed this, so get on it already. a bug needs to > > > be opened somewhere to get the package properly *fixed* > > > > This problem is probably caused by bugs in Python 2, which have been fixed > > in Python 3. > > the new information you've provided here only reinforces the fact the current > code is wrong. properly document the append-flags and properly restrict it to > when python-2 is being used. > > considering python-2 is going to be in our lives for a while, how hard is it > to backport the changes in question to the headers ? presumably it's > struct/union/cast shuffling in the headers.
This is upstream python bug 969718 offhand; basically if cflags exists for distutils consumers, base cflags don't make it fully through- meaning no -fno-strict-aliasing as is generally needed for building python extensions. As for py3k, looks of it py3.1 still suffers it. Either way, this is the wrong thing to fix- python's distutils needs fixing, not consumers. In snakeoil, we detect and fix it on the fly to provide a fixed version of distutils, but obviously not many pkgs consume that... ~harring