| 1 |
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 10:32 -0500, Christopher Friedt wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi Ned, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I like the patch - there are probably many cases where a package does |
| 5 |
> not cross compile properly when include paths are not fixed. In those |
| 6 |
> cases, it would be necessary to patch the source on an |
| 7 |
> ebuild-by-ebuild basis. This would eliminate the need to fix the files |
| 8 |
> at an ebuild level with a relatively inexpensive check. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Mike has a couple of good points too - unless it's necessary to use |
| 11 |
> thee function from outside gcc or whatever library it ends up in, it |
| 12 |
> may as well be marked static. Path vs name ? I think path. Regarding |
| 13 |
> arbitrary non-standard include paths that could generate false |
| 14 |
> positives, i have no comment. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Regarding path normalization ( "//" => "/" ) - in my opinion, if gcc |
| 17 |
> doesn't already do it, then forget about it - otherwise one would be |
| 18 |
> obliged to fix it for the rest of gcc, no? Keep it short and simple. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Depending on the level of community feedback you want, I could help |
| 21 |
> test for a while, or you could just include it in an unstable ~ gcc |
| 22 |
> version and see how the universe reacts to it :) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I'm all for these things. But to be honest time is limited and I've not |
| 25 |
been having too much trouble simply using -I${ROOT}/usr/include. Every |
| 26 |
so often a I'll need to add a non standard python include path. But it's |
| 27 |
been easy enough to work around. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Anyway feel free to recode up a better patch to address the points you |
| 30 |
and others have pointed out. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 34 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives