Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 07:16:33 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 194825] [PATCH] Make sysutils/mcelog build on DragonFly Message-ID: <bug-194825-13-n7guNcPEQr@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-194825-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-194825-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194825 --- Comment #3 from John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Jeremy Chadwick from comment #2) > I approve of this patch (updating Makefile and files/patch-Makefile. > > One thing I want to make clear here, however: the CFLAGS definition (of -Os > -g) in the software's Makefile is somewhat justified. If you read the top > of that Makefile, they explain why: it has to do with compiler warning flags > catching certain scenarios only when -Os is in use (compared to just -O2 or > -O or stock defaults). That's something that needs to be kept in mind going > forward. Wouldn't that be essentially a developer flag then? In any case, the blocking of CFLAGS from ports is considered an error. There are three ways to resolve the error. 1) Remove the pre-definition (as ftigeot did) 2) Change the makefile to accept the addition of new CFLAGS (not possible here because -g can't be switched off and -O would conflict) 3) Remove the definition from vendor makefile but put them back in ports makefile (where they can be changed or overridden easily) I think the approach ftigeot is using is okay. As ports users we're not that interested in compilers warning about actual code, those are for the developers and the code is considered release quality now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-194825-13-n7guNcPEQr>