[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] About upstreams appending additional CFLAGS when
From:       "Aaron W. Swenson" <titanofold () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2011-08-31 22:29:35
Message-ID: 4E5EB5CF.7090104 () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

-----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-----

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]