[Build-common-hackers] Bug#487546: Bug#487546: Bug#487546: cdbs: class/langcore.mk should set CC=gcc if CC is not set

Jonas Smedegaard dr at jones.dk
Sun Jun 21 11:40:25 UTC 2009

Hash: RIPEMD160

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 01:32:44PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>On Wednesday 17 June 2009 10:32:01 Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Peter Eisentraut<peter_e at gmx.net> wrote:
>> > On Sunday 22 June 2008 18:11:39 Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>> >> class/langcore.mk sets -g -Wall -O2 without checking whether CC 
>> >> can actualy process these options. For instance, -g produces 
>> >> output that is partially GDB-specific. On most GNU software, 
>> >> autotools perform these check for us and set CC=gcc autogamically. 
>> >> On other software, CC is often left unset. This is mostly okay on 
>> >> a Debian system, because the presumption is that CC=gcc, but we 
>> >> can never be sure of what parallel compilers, etc. someone might 
>> >> run, so it would be desirable for class/langcore.mk to set CC=gcc 
>> >> is it is unset.
>> >
>> > Do you have a concrete counterexample where the current code does 
>> > not work?
>> In the case where an upstream tarball comes with a single C file and 
>> no Makefile, the only option a maintainer has is to create a manual 
>> build target in debian/rules to compile the binary and to include 
>> class/langcore.mk to always use the standard Debian build options. 
>> However, class/langcore.mk includes GNU-specific options without 
>> checking that the compiler supports them (or at least setting CC=gcc 
>> to ensure that it does), so the build is not guaranteed to succeed.
>After further reflection, I think we should change something here.
>I turns out that /usr/bin/cc is an alternative, and so we cannot assume 
>that it is gcc.  And although it is not explicitly spelled out in the 
>policy, the build essential list strongly hints that packages are 
>supposed to be built with gcc by default.
>So I think it would be easy and safe to set CC = gcc near where we set 
>CFLAGS, and the same for C++.
>Another advantage of this would be that packages built with cdbs don't 
>use a different compiler invocation than those built without.

A build environment using a different C compiler than the default gcc as 
cc is broken with respect to Package compilation. (I believe that to be 
in Policy somewhere too).

I do not see it as the task of CDBS to fix/overrule broken build 

  - Jonas

- -- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the Build-common-hackers mailing list