| 1 |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:00:55 +0200 |
| 2 |
Carsten Lohrke <carlo@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Afaik it has always been the way that *sane* LDFLAGS are to be |
| 4 |
> respected, but exceptions exist of course and it's up to the |
| 5 |
> maintainer to mangle or clear your LDFLAGS, if deemed necessary. I'd |
| 6 |
> like to know, why Mark asked to bring this question up here. |
| 7 |
> Shouldn't this be common sense!? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
The way it is currently: Packages ignoring CFLAGS without a *very* good |
| 10 |
reason (and 'upstream thinks they know better' is rarely a very good |
| 11 |
reason, especially when upstream supposedly knowing better leads to v7 |
| 12 |
builds on v9 systems) need to be fixed. Packages ignoring LDFLAGS can |
| 13 |
be fixed if the maintainer feels like it, but there's no requirement to |
| 14 |
do so and filing bugs about it is frowned upon. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Until recently, LDFLAGS have been put in the "anyone using these is a |
| 17 |
ricer" category. Unfortunately, the misguided promotion of 'as-needed' |
| 18 |
despite its massive design flaws has lead people to think that setting |
| 19 |
LDFLAGS is in some way useful or cool. I expect next someone will try |
| 20 |
to find a way to force 'ASFLAGS' onto everyone... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives