Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-10-04 Thread Paul de Vrieze
Maybe it depends on what you mean by 'in control'. What I mean is that you have a good stable base from which to work on, but nothing prevents you to tweak things like you want: Gentoo doesn't get in your way. http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml mentions "Extreme Configurabiliy" and the main

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-10-04 Thread Jan Kundrát
Mike Frysinger wrote: > i could update vpenis.sh so that this statement is incorrect ... Please go for it :) -jkt -- cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN, 3rd version

2006-10-03 Thread Lionel Bouton
Here's the third version of the draft, wiki-free and with less sugar too. More warnings. Thanks again for the input. --- Draft BEGIN --- CFLAGS Being able to tune the CFLAGS is part of one of the core principles of Gentoo: let the user be in control. Being in control brings both benefits and

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-10-03 Thread Lionel Bouton
Ciaran McCreesh wrote the following on 03.10.2006 14:26 : > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:56:42 +0200 Lionel Bouton > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | Being able to tune the CFLAGS is part of one of the core principles of > | Gentoo: let the user be in control. > > What? No it isn't. > Maybe it depends

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-10-03 Thread Lionel Bouton
Chris Gianelloni wrote the following on 03.10.2006 22:46 : > On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 19:49 +0200, Lionel Bouton wrote: > >> It seemed to me that although it is hosted in the www.gentoo.org space >> the GWN isn't official Gentoo stuff. >> > > The GWN is staffed entirely by developers. We have

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-10-03 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 19:49 +0200, Lionel Bouton wrote: > It seemed to me that although it is hosted in the www.gentoo.org space > the GWN isn't official Gentoo stuff. The GWN is staffed entirely by developers. We have non-developer writers, but the staffers are all developers. To be honest, rat

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-10-03 Thread Simon Stelling
Daniel Ostrow wrote: It is inherently unreliable and outside of Gentoo's control. Sorry, I really tried hard, but I just couldn't anymore... Must... say... __ _ _ _ _ _ / \ | | | | | | | | _ \ | __ ) / \ / ___|| | / _ \ | |

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-10-03 Thread Stephen P. Becker
Charlie wrote: > On 03/10/06, Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Gentoo-wiki does not now nor will it ever get linked to from official >> Gentoo media, documentation, or anything else within the www.gentoo.org >> namespace... > > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/app-emulati

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-10-03 Thread Lionel Bouton
Daniel Ostrow wrote the following on 03.10.2006 19:22 : > > Ok...lets try this... > > Gentoo-wiki does not now nor will it ever get linked to from official > Gentoo media, documentation, or anything else within the www.gentoo.org > namespace... > > It seemed to me that although it is hosted in

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-10-03 Thread Charlie
On 03/10/06, Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Gentoo-wiki does not now nor will it ever get linked to from official Gentoo media, documentation, or anything else within the www.gentoo.org namespace... http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/app-emulation/xen/xen-3.0.2.ebuild?rev

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-10-03 Thread Daniel Ostrow
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 19:16 +0200, Lionel Bouton wrote: > Josh Saddler wrote the following on 03.10.2006 18:11 : > > (...) > > > Lionel > > Uh, Gentoo-wiki does not get linked. > > Are there many trying to link to the Gentoo Wiki in official > documentation? It seems guns are warm and devs quick t

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-10-03 Thread Lionel Bouton
Josh Saddler wrote the following on 03.10.2006 18:11 : > (...) > > Lionel > Uh, Gentoo-wiki does not get linked. Are there many trying to link to the Gentoo Wiki in official documentation? It seems guns are warm and devs quick to jump to conclusions (re-read the title and the previous discussion o

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-10-03 Thread Josh Saddler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lionel Bouton wrote: > Here's an updated draft. I included most of your remarks and added some > notes on append-flags/filter-flags. I'll probably submit it to Ulrich > around the end of the week. > > --- Draft BEGIN --- > > CFLAGS > > > > Being a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-10-03 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 03 October 2006 08:26, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Your penis length is not proportional to the size of your CFLAGS. i could update vpenis.sh so that this statement is incorrect ... -mike pgp8aNMxlm8sc.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-10-03 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:56:42 +0200 Lionel Bouton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Being able to tune the CFLAGS is part of one of the core principles of | Gentoo: let the user be in control. What? No it isn't. | nss_ldap stopped working with -ffast-math (reported to | break many packages changing wit

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-10-03 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 02:56 +0200, Lionel Bouton wrote: > Here's an updated draft. I included most of your remarks and added some > notes on append-flags/filter-flags. I'll probably submit it to Ulrich > around the end of the week. I surely hope you don't submit it to Ulrich if you want it to actu

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-10-02 Thread Lionel Bouton
Here's an updated draft. I included most of your remarks and added some notes on append-flags/filter-flags. I'll probably submit it to Ulrich around the end of the week. --- Draft BEGIN --- CFLAGS Being able to tune the CFLAGS is part of one of the core principles of Gentoo: let the user be in

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-09-30 Thread George Prowse
Lionel Bouton wrote: Hi, I just had an unpleasant experience with -ffast-math and GCC 4.1.1 (it borked my LDAP authentication on several systems which worked with the same CFLAGS as long as GCC 3.4.6 was used). There is a lot of material out there about CFLAGS and Gentoo (google returns 387000 p

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-09-30 Thread Lionel Bouton
Mike Frysinger wrote the following on 30.09.2006 23:48 : > [...] > `man gcc` always seemed fine to me > > in fact, lets read the -ffast-math section: >-ffast-math >This option should never be turned on by any -O option since it can >result in incorrect output for pro

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-09-30 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Saturday 30 September 2006 16:35, Lionel Bouton wrote: > There is a lot of material out there about CFLAGS `man gcc` always seemed fine to me in fact, lets read the -ffast-math section: -ffast-math This option should never be turned on by any -O option since it can

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-09-30 Thread Dominique Michel
Le Sat, 30 Sep 2006 22:35:58 +0200, Lionel Bouton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > Hi, I just had an unpleasant experience with -ffast-math and GCC 4.1.1 > (it borked my LDAP authentication on several systems which worked with > the same CFLAGS as long as GCC 3.4.6 was used). > > There is a lot of

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

2006-09-30 Thread Lionel Bouton
Hi, I just had an unpleasant experience with -ffast-math and GCC 4.1.1 (it borked my LDAP authentication on several systems which worked with the same CFLAGS as long as GCC 3.4.6 was used). There is a lot of material out there about CFLAGS and Gentoo (google returns 387000 pages) but what's workin