Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 09 May 2019 07:06:08 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        xfce@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 237714] [PATCH] sysutils/xfce4-power-manager: fix craches, improve freebsd support, add DEBUG option
Message-ID:  <bug-237714-28711-AydApqR39t@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-237714-28711@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-237714-28711@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=3D237714

--- Comment #3 from Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org> ---
(In reply to rozhuk.im from comment #2)
> --enable-debug does not affect to INSTALL_TARGET=3D	install-strip, and as
> result binary without debug symbols, gdb bt show nothink usable.
> I see no other good ways to set INSTALL_TARGET=3Dinstall, remove -O* and =
add
> -g to CFLAGS.

Maybe my question was not clear. The standard way to build ports with debug=
ging
symbols in FreeBSD is to use the WITH_DEBUG flag, which you use correctly.

WITH_DEBUG causes the ports framework to unset the STRIP variable and set
STRIP_CMD to true (the noop command), also automatically removes optimizati=
on
flags from cflags and replaces INSTALL_TARGET. You can find the code doing =
all
this in bsd.port.mk [1]


What I was criticizing is adding a "DEBUG" option using the options framewo=
rk.
It's better to only check for the WITH_DEBUG flag and act based on that, no
need for an option in the option framework. Should every single port have a
DEBUG option then?

I'd rather avoid polluting port options by adding DEBUG to OPTIONS_DEFINE. =
Some
ports are doing this but this is not a good idea.

>=20
> I will submit changes to upstream a bit later.

In general I think that, for changes which are not just porting changes, but
actual development, submitting them upstream should happen before including=
 in
the ports tree. This to avoid diverging.

Anyway most of these changes look quite reasonable so I will be testing them
for inclusion.

>=20
> "return g_strdup (_("Unknown"));" - makes compiller happy and silence
> warning.
> I will try to submit all changes to upstream.

I see.

>=20
> 8 - my magic number.
> I assume that this is max reasonable index count for lcd0...lcd7.
>=20
> I will change 64 to something like 16 in future.

This could be difficult to upstream. Better put it in a define anyway.


I'll followup with a modified patch.


[1]
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/Mk/bsd.port.mk?revision=3D500731&view=
=3Dmarkup#l1758

--=20
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-237714-28711-AydApqR39t>