Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 12:13:59 +0100 From: Pietro Cerutti <gahr@FreeBSD.org> To: Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r308132 - head/audio/amrcoder Message-ID: <20121203111359.GB86596@gahrfit.gahr.ch> In-Reply-To: <50BC8788.3090405@FreeBSD.org> References: <201212031034.qB3AYpkL004754@svn.freebsd.org> <20121203105040.GA30670@FreeBSD.org> <20121203105616.GA86596@gahrfit.gahr.ch> <50BC8788.3090405@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--zx4FCpZtqtKETZ7O Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2012-Dec-03, 12:05, Alex Dupre wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 >=20 > Pietro Cerutti ha scritto: > > I see no reason, however, not to let the author supersede them with > > more appropriate flags. >=20 > If they were appropriate, why have you changed them? :-) This is the > exact reason why we want the user set these optimization flags. When > there is a really good motivation to add higher optimization flags > usually we have OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS OPTION. Fair enough. After re-reading [1] I realize that optimization flags are to be treated differently (i.e., removed) than other flags an author might want to set. [1] http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/book.html#dads-cfl= ags Thanks danfe and ale for the review! --=20 Pietro Cerutti The FreeBSD Project gahr@FreeBSD.org PGP Public Key: http://gahr.ch/pgp --zx4FCpZtqtKETZ7O Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlC8iXcACgkQwMJqmJVx9467YgCdFaw5wTl90N8JeNAOL+Yv+jhP CJQAoLbZV2qimXOgpUejtHlPPKjTVgnI =WSA3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --zx4FCpZtqtKETZ7O--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121203111359.GB86596>