[Build-common-hackers] Bug#523642: overrides CFLAGS too agressively
dr at jones.dk
Sun Apr 12 14:57:41 UTC 2009
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
tags 523642 -wontfix
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 02:53:32PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 10:06:45PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 07:07:07PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>> >On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 06:13:58PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> >> I do not say that CDBS is correct or not in its current behaviour,
>> >> just that it has a well defined vurrent behaviour that users rely
>> >> on (whether or not they are aware of it).
>> >> I have tagged this as wontfix for that reason. Please note that
>> >> even if this means I do not expect this to change (or at least not
>> >> soon - it is possible to change when we decide to bump ABI at some
>> >> point, if ever), I am still interested in discussing it!
>> >Why not use an environment variable then?
>> Like you quoted right above: Because CDBS is in active use with
>> current behaviour.
>> Does that somehow not make sense?
>What I mean is, why not use an environment variable such that when
>defined, and only when it is defined, it overrides current behaviour?
>E.g. DISABLE_MAKE_VARIABLE_OVERRIDE := yes
>This doesn't break existing use.
Ahhh, now I get it :-D
I see no problem in that.
>Another option could be that when CFLAGS is unset (rather than empty),
>CDBS detects this and doesn't pass anything as override. This allows
>user to explicitly set CFLAGS in DEB_MAKE_ENVVARS, or not at all.
Actually, first off when I read you initial post, I went straight into
the code to try do this. But I didn't succeed - I suspect it is too
difficult to distinguish unset from empty.
If you have ideas on how it could be done, then please provide sample
code. It might make sense to support _both_ setting a big explicit flag
and undefining the variable - each approach have their use, I imagine.
>> >> Could you perhaps provide some good examples of upstream software
>> >> needing custom CFLAGS that is cumbersome to work around using CDBS?
>> >Yeah, Linux modules. Or plugins in general for all sort of programs.
>> >They're usually very picky when it comes to CFLAGS.
>> I understand that they are picky about CFLAGS, but can't their CFLAGS be
>> re-applied when using CDBS?
>Because I would have to duplicate a really long set of flag
>declaration, which isn't even consistent across architectures, and
>doesn't even depend on the upstream makefile but rather on the Linux
>ones (Linux modules are usually built using centralized makefiles), and
>therefore can change depending on which Linux version are we building
>I'll rather maintain a local version of makefile-vars.mk in debian/
>than having to do that.
Thanks for clarifying.
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Build-common-hackers