Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:41:36 +0200
From:      Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
Cc:        svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r307045 - head/Mk
Message-ID:  <50D6DFE0.3010201@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1212211859090.2358@tuna.site>
References:  <201211060023.qA60NhFW028290@svn.freebsd.org> <5098E619.3070902@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1212211859090.2358@tuna.site>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 22/12/2012 07:01 Gerald Pfeifer said the following:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>>   This extends revision r246991 (2010-01-02) and should not be necessary
>>>   in most cases since LDFLAGS already covers linking, but one can always
>>
>> Rather than adding this flag to CXXFLAGS why not drop it from CFLAGS?
>> There is no place for linker options in compilation flags.
> 
> Yes, but, there is an amazing lot of broken software out there.  And,
> unlike compilation errors, failure to locate run-time libraries (or
> the right ones) is a lot harder to detect and we currently don't have
> a way to do so automatically.

And it won't get magically fixed without fixing.

>>>   compile and link in one swoop, and this makes things consistent between
>>>   C and C++.
>> This is a strange argument.  When one does compilation and linking in 
>> one swoop one uses both CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS and LDFLAGS.  In non-broken 
>> software there is never a dependency on linker flags auto-magically 
>> appearing in CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS.
> 
> If we'd only be dealing with non-broken software (or well maintained
> ports), I could have saved a couple of days of FreeBSD work this past
> year alone. :-/
> 
> I'm not opposed to removing this from both CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS, it
> "just" needs committment by all port maintainers to fix, if not test,
> their ports accordingly.  That's the crux I see.

My understanding is that that commitment is implied by them being the maintainers.
Usually the maintainers use the software themselves, usually they react to
problem reports, usually they give up their maintainership if they are not going
to do either.

Additional points:
- the only people affected are those who use a non-default compiler and they
expect to run into issues from time to time and even to find solutions for them
- I have this change in my environment for ~1 year and I haven't run into any
problems; I have 1190 packages-from-ports installed, that includes the
mainstream things like X, KDE4, OpenOffice, LibreOffice and many other goodies.

-- 
Andriy Gapon



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50D6DFE0.3010201>