[Build-common-hackers] Bug#487546: Bug#487546: Bug#487546: cdbs: class/langcore.mk should set CC=gcc if CC is not set
dr at jones.dk
Sun Jun 21 11:40:25 UTC 2009
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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 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