El mié, 31-08-2011 a las 18:29 -0400, Aaron W. Swenson escribió: > -----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----- > >
Well, in this case it is simply appending "-g" when building with debugging support, and it doesn't seem to cause any problem :-/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
