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