Re: [gentoo-dev] About upstreams appending additional CFLAGS when building with some configure options

[Pacho Ramos]

El mié, 31-08-2011 a las 18:29 -0400, Aaron W. Swenson escribió:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 08/31/2011 03:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > I won't be able to reply to this thread for now, but would like to
> > ask about how to handle cases like:
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=381355
> >
> > Until now, I usually opted to trust upstreams and don't touch FLAGS
> > they set (except cases like Werror and so.), but I am not sure if
> > maybe I should drop that CFLAGS :-/
> >
> > What do you think? Please also take care I doubt upstream wouldn't
> > ever accept that change and, then, we should carry it forever.
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your help
>
> If there are C{,XX}FLAGS that are absolutely known to cause the build
> to fail, strip them from the C{,XX}FLAGS using the strip-flags.
>
> You shouldn't let upstream jerk you or our users around, though. If I
> want to build my packages with -march=native -mtune=native -pipe -O3
> - -fzomg -freakin-fast -man -fo-sho, then by golly, let me.
>
> We have a 'custom-cflags' USE flag. The definition of which has been
> to allow the CFLAGS the user wants, but if it breaks, that's his or
> her problem but not ours -- the Gentoo developers -- nor upstream's.
>
> - - Aaron
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iF4EAREIAAYFAk5etc4ACgkQCOhwUhu5AEl3RwD+PJA9RNQGlmMLDvAg2abBflXM
> 9mks/pxA+bGTkIRZ5iAA/iRTrxTbqGu83LPbCT/QwwMrlecffsE/XdRJ5Y3uhoDR
> =R6xV
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

Well, in this case it is simply appending "-g" when building with
debugging support, and it doesn't seem to cause any problem :-/