Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 04:15:33 -0500 From: Aaron Walker <ka0ttic@gentoo.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Ports are not ready for CFLAGS=-O2 in 6.0 Message-ID: <4188A1B5.3010609@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20041102234821.GA76782@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20041102222000.GA65845@xor.obsecurity.org> <200411021736.21034.kirk@strauser.com> <20041102234821.GA76782@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Kris Kennaway wrote: | On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 05:36:17PM -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote: |>Out of curiosity, are those ports like to have equivalents in Gentoo's |>"portage" system? Those guys love to build with -O310 -fomit-instructions |>but their stuff seems to pretty much work. Why do we seem to have so many |>problems with (presumably?) the same software on our system? | | | Don't know, perhaps they don't care about the fraction of ports that | don't work properly since the rest of them have such eleet | optimization. Trust me, we care. As another poster pointed out, packages that have known problems with certain flags either replace them with safe alternatives or filter them. Btw, we don't all use insane CFLAGS. We just happen to have a greater number of clueless users who don't fully understand the flags they decide to use ;) Cheers - -- Multics is security spelled sideways. Aaron Walker < ka0ttic@gentoo.org > http://dev.gentoo.org/~ka0ttic/ Gentoo/BSD | cron | shell-tools http://butsugenjitemple.org/~ka0ttic/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBiKG1C3poscuANHARAm0hAKC6EKDGWYXnwt1X4GpA0muza7B7BgCdE+m8 XPEQHx0HC9B/WpJy9JAs9s8= =NcGx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4188A1B5.3010609>