Re: Proposalto introduce compiler options passed from dpkg-buildpackage
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:01:00PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 05:44:33PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Moritz Muehlenhoff writes:
> > > [This message has also been posted to gmane.linux.debian.devel.general.]
> > > On 2007-12-25, Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org> wrote:
> > > > Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > >> This is a proposal to introduce a common set of compiler options which
> > > >> can be set independently from the package, and passed/injected to the
> > > >> package build process. It was first discussed at the last UDS; a
> > > >> corresponding wiki page can be found at [1].
> > > >
> > > > A change like that is more or less required for the planned introduction
> > > > of security hardening features. Since noone really objected to the change
> > > > outlined, I'd be interested in the way forward from here and what timeline
> > > > is planned to set the changes into effect.
> > >
> > > Matthias, what's the status?
> >
> > thanks for the reminder; I did update the proposal and renamed the
> > environment variables to what Colin Watson did suggest. Bug #465282
> > now has a patch for dpkg-architecture attached.
>
> That looks good to me. Maybe we should have individual default flags
> per architecture, so that features, which are buggy or not fully
> implemented on a given arch can be disabled so that the workarounds
> don't need to be done by the maintainers across several rules files?
Hmm, I doubt that dpkg-dev should be the place to keep track of that.
I mean, that probably depends on the version of gcc/g++/whatever used,
so it's quite meaningless to make it dependent on the version of
dpkg-dev you use.
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
Reply to: