Simon Ruderich wrote:
>> Simon Ruderich wrote:
>>> I think just patching in LDFLAGS is simpler than fixing configure
>>> and adding TEST_LDFLAGS in a few places.
[...]
> I concur completely, sending those changes to upstream is always
> the best.
I see. In that case I disagree with you. My first impression is that
patching in LDFLAGS upstream is not simpler than fixing configure and
adding TEST_LDFLAGS in a few places. The former is a maintainability
hassle ("how do I decide whether to use LDFLAGS or TEST_LDFLAGS in
each line") and makes the semantics of LDFLAGS versus TEST_LDFLAGS
more difficult to explain. The latter would be just making the
existing semantics more consistent.
However, that's kind of off-topic here. I could easily be convinced
that adding LDFLAGS everywhere is good, especially if others on the
zlib list seem to agree. The right place to have that discussion is
there. They are efficient and seem happy to hear from newcomers.
Hoping that clarifies,
Jonathan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
