[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: addition to debian standards

On 23-Sep-1998, Dan Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 1998 at 11:09:51PM +1000, Tyson Dowd wrote:
> > Not portable.
> > 
> > That is a gnumake-ism, not part of make at all.
> > 
> > You can't put that in a Makefile and use it on all machines.
> > The system make on IRIX 5.2 for example will barf on it (I just
> > checked).
> > 
> > Since we often use portable code, I don't think it would be a good
> > idea to expect it to use non-portable constructs.
> But in all honesty there currently can not be (without a LOT of work) a
> debian/rules file that could be portable.  I highly doubt dpkg will
> compile without gnu make.

Huh?  Who said anything about debian/rules?

This is in the source code, which has been written by other people.

Of course you can use gnu-makeisms in debian/rules, but in
the main source it's not likely to be there and it's not a great
idea to change portable code to make it less portable, just so
you can fix a "bug" (which doesn't even solve the problem correctly).

> > Besides, += can only do concatenation, what you really want is
> > appending, because if you give an optimization option you don't
> > want it overriden by the given optimization options.
> There is no difference between concatenation and appending; and the
> last optimization always overrides the first.

make CFLAGS=-O221 -msome-architecture


CFLAGS += -g -O2 -m486

So CFLAGS = -O221 -msome-architecture -g -O2 -m486

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.     - Benjamin Franklin

Tyson Dowd   <tyson@tyse.net>   http://tyse.net

Reply to: