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

Re: This is not a proposal that can be implemented in make

"Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@connexer.com> writes:

> On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 08:59:47PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le samedi 06 janvier 2007 à 13:32 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> >         Something like this needs to be designed from a system
>> >  perspective, and needs, probably, to cooperation the package build
>> >  system.
>> > 
>> >         Since this is something that cant be done by a single pacage,
>> >  I am reassigning this bug. (For example, my employer would be annoyed
>> >  if all out product builds fail since make suddenly injects random
>> >  flags for which our software is unprepared for).
>> Isn't that what pentium-builder does?
> If you are talking about the injection of random flags, then does it
> matter?  Using pentium-builder is optional for building software.  Using
> make generally is not.  A misbehaved wrapper is easy to work around
> (don't use it).  A misbehaved hard dependency is a bit tougher.
> Regards,
> -Roberto

And why should make do that?

Gcc already provides this feature. You have to setup a specs file and
include the options you want there. This is also so flexible that you
can omit options if conflicting options are given already. E.g. add
-m64 only if no -m32 is given.


Reply to: