| 1 |
Hi Ciaran, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:49:42 +0100 Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@×××.de> |
| 6 |
> wrote: |
| 7 |
> | please let me know, since when do we have a bug policy for "standard |
| 8 |
> | accepted safe use flags"? I don't expect any developer to test a |
| 9 |
> | variety of different use flags, but what if a user reports, that a |
| 10 |
> | package is seriously broken because of a use flag? In former times a |
| 11 |
> | critical flag was just filtered out in the ebuild, but why is such a |
| 12 |
> | thing fix now rejected ? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
[snip] |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> If you mean CFLAGS, you won't have any problems if you stick with a nice |
| 17 |
> sane set (on the rare occasions when sensible CFLAGS do cause problems, |
| 18 |
> they're generally filtered). If you use stupid CFLAGS, expect things to |
| 19 |
> break. Anyone using -ffast-math globally, for example, deserves |
| 20 |
> everything they get... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Seesh. You're right. I was talking about CFLAGS. Now, is there a policy for |
| 24 |
"standard accepted safe CFLAGS" ? I know, it is my problem, if something |
| 25 |
really breaks. But I have really a lot of apps running with my (not too |
| 26 |
esoteric) settings, and if one single app fails badly (just core dumps) and |
| 27 |
I can track it down to a single CFLAG flag, what is the actual policy (if |
| 28 |
there is one)? Why is a filter for the flag just recected? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
- Jörg |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives