Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 12:07:50 -0400 From: "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com> To: Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de> Cc: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org, gerald@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Has anyone tested the jack update - am I ok to commit it? Message-ID: <CAGFTUwObv-92bVdF%2B7YZ7Xdf-gTp-_0N-MOQfq=S_y=40PDApQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110918152101.GA88715@triton8.kn-bremen.de> References: <CAGFTUwNMqpOcYLZCzbZ7tj5qqZF6UXm6zv-%2BH3ZxYNa9U9VQCA@mail.gmail.com> <20110918152101.GA88715@triton8.kn-bremen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/18/11, Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:19:27PM -0400, b. f. wrote: >> -- clean up ugly flag handling >> > Can you elaborate? As in the patch I sent to you, along with the doxygen-related changes. CFLAGS and CPPFLAGS are already being passed in do-configure, so it is only necessary to append to them, but not to explicitly add them to CONFIGURE_ENV. This also makes it easier to check their values via "make -V". Also, it was always advisable to perform linking via the compiler with the flags issued for compilation, and now it is essential for flags like -flto and -fstack-protector, which some people are using with ports, so our previous careless handling of LDFLAGS is being cleaned up (cf. http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/157936, etc.) , and it is important to try (within reason) to honor the user-requested LDFLAGS just as we do for CFLAGS. Therefore, just append the addition to the library search path to LDFLAGS, and pass the result, rather than clobbering the flags. b.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGFTUwObv-92bVdF%2B7YZ7Xdf-gTp-_0N-MOQfq=S_y=40PDApQ>