1 |
El mié, 31-08-2011 a las 18:29 -0400, Aaron W. Swenson escribió: |
2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
3 |
> Hash: SHA256 |
4 |
> |
5 |
> On 08/31/2011 03:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
6 |
> > I won't be able to reply to this thread for now, but would like to |
7 |
> > ask about how to handle cases like: |
8 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=381355 |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > Until now, I usually opted to trust upstreams and don't touch FLAGS |
11 |
> > they set (except cases like Werror and so.), but I am not sure if |
12 |
> > maybe I should drop that CFLAGS :-/ |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > What do you think? Please also take care I doubt upstream wouldn't |
15 |
> > ever accept that change and, then, we should carry it forever. |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > Thanks a lot for your help |
18 |
> |
19 |
> If there are C{,XX}FLAGS that are absolutely known to cause the build |
20 |
> to fail, strip them from the C{,XX}FLAGS using the strip-flags. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> You shouldn't let upstream jerk you or our users around, though. If I |
23 |
> want to build my packages with -march=native -mtune=native -pipe -O3 |
24 |
> - -fzomg -freakin-fast -man -fo-sho, then by golly, let me. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> We have a 'custom-cflags' USE flag. The definition of which has been |
27 |
> to allow the CFLAGS the user wants, but if it breaks, that's his or |
28 |
> her problem but not ours -- the Gentoo developers -- nor upstream's. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> - - Aaron |
31 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
32 |
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) |
33 |
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ |
34 |
> |
35 |
> iF4EAREIAAYFAk5etc4ACgkQCOhwUhu5AEl3RwD+PJA9RNQGlmMLDvAg2abBflXM |
36 |
> 9mks/pxA+bGTkIRZ5iAA/iRTrxTbqGu83LPbCT/QwwMrlecffsE/XdRJ5Y3uhoDR |
37 |
> =R6xV |
38 |
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
39 |
> |
40 |
> |
41 |
|
42 |
Well, in this case it is simply appending "-g" when building with |
43 |
debugging support, and it doesn't seem to cause any problem :-/ |