From owner-cvs-all Wed Jan 6 11:54:09 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA28990 for cvs-all-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:54:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from hp9000.chc-chimes.com (hp9000.chc-chimes.com [206.67.97.84]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA28909; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:54:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from billf@chc-chimes.com) Received: from localhost by hp9000.chc-chimes.com with SMTP (1.39.111.2/16.2) id AA264391322; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 09:02:02 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 09:02:02 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Fumerola To: Hidetoshi Shimokawa Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/giftrans Makefile ports/graphics/mpeg2codec/patches patch-aa ports/graphics/splitmpg/patches patch-aa ports/graphics/xdl/patches patch-aa In-Reply-To: <19990106104022O.simokawa@sat.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > Respecting system CFLAGS means ignoring application's optimization flags > completely... (we may be able to do something in ports Makefile) Yes. That is why we define CFLAGS in the first place. I wrote a couple messages ago a 5 line tidbit that Does The Right Thing for 95% of our ports that don't inherently respect CFLAGS properly. Some ports leave a hook for optimization (apache, for instance). Default, though is that we leave CFLAGS to the user. > If this is right, I will remove all optimization flags next time. ... and make it respect the system's CFLAGS - bill fumerola - billf@chc-chimes.com - BF1560 - computer horizons corp - - ph:(800) 252-2421 - bfumerol@computerhorizons.com - billf@FreeBSD.org - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message