Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 20:50:53 +1000 From: Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> To: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, python@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/169276 Message-ID: <53B5358D.2030208@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20140703124756.5177f63b@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> References: <m238ejrm4r.wl%randy@psg.com> <53B4FC59.9000706@FreeBSD.org> <20140703112112.120f0db3@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <53B52633.9000000@FreeBSD.org> <20140703124756.5177f63b@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/07/2014 8:47 PM, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 19:45:23 +1000 Kubilay Kocak wrote: >> The cause of the module failures was due to a >> CFLAGS="-I/usr/local/include" in /etc/make.conf so that parts all >> sorted. This is why we kept the comment in there about using CPPFLAGS vs >> CFLAGS (removed in your change) > > I see, that will probably cause subtle problems in other ports as well. > > The reason I removed the comment about CPPFLAGS is because it seemed > redundant to me. Flags like -I and -D should always go into CPPFLAGS. > Adding them to CFLAGS is the special case. > >> I understand the rationale for the move from LDFLAGS -> LIBS, but I am >> still concerned due to the plethora of flags based issues we've had with >> Python in the past >> >> This is especially with regards to the right flags turning up in the >> right places for shared extensions (such as within python-config output) >> and doubly-so for the substantial number of workarounds that we've had >> to retain and maintain locally in the port (see the post-configure and >> pre-patch targets for lang/python27 for example) > > Ok, I think everything is ok at the moment, but feel free to contact > me if some issue comes up. > Much appreciated :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53B5358D.2030208>