Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:59:27 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r552302 - head/net/nifmon/files Message-ID: <20201014065927.GA20521@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20201014064643.rg2rd7usrsixpjdi@ivaldir.net> References: <202010140641.09E6fPUD010851@repo.freebsd.org> <20201014064643.rg2rd7usrsixpjdi@ivaldir.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 08:46:43AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 06:41:25AM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > New Revision: 552302 > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/552302 > > > > Log: > > Force -fcommon to unbreak the build against Clang 11 and GCC 10. > > > > PR: 250219 > > I don't understand why you have to patch the Makefile here, Because the port already patches the Makefile (for another reason) and I didn't want to spread the changes against port's Makefile and patch-Makefile. > should be passed by the port CFLAGS Usually that's what I do, yes (if fixing the code properly would be unfeasible). > In any case the current approach seems wrong to me. Both are technically fine in this particular case. I'd agree with you that creating new multi-line patch file instead of adding one CFLAGS+= line in the port's Makefile looks bad, but that didn't happen here. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20201014065927.GA20521>