Re: presumable last policy change before releasing Squeeze?
* ERSEK Laszlo <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> [091004 21:54]:
>> Take a look at the FreeBSD port and see if the Makefile patch is
>> appropriate to include upstream or if not, contact the port maintainer
>> about it.
>
> The FreeBSD port creator/maintainer, Gábor Kövesdán, personally offered
> to do the port [0], and I gratefully accepted (obviously). We already
> discussed the Makefile patch and concluded that the FreeBSD port needs
> it, and that upstream can't merge it. A minimal justification sounds
> like: (1) the port doesn't compile with -D _XOPEN_SOURCE=500, (2) SUSv2
> requires -D _XOPEN_SOURCE=500 [1], and upstream is written against SUSv2.
>
> No changes are planned for the upstream Makefile, so maintaining the
> patch shouldn't be much of a burden, hopefully.
Note that you might do without a patch. make is build for cases like
that in mind, so replacing variables in a makefile you do not like just
needs those variables as command line arguments.
so just changing debian/rules to
$(MAKE) CFLAGS="$(CFLAGS)" LDFLAGS="$(LDFLAGS)" LIBS="$(LIBS)"
might do the same without needing to edit the Makefile.
Looking at the definition of those variables in your debian/rules also
looks very complicated. Unless there is a reason to rerun this script
all the time? Otherwise e.g. some
LDFLAGS := $(shell ./lfs.sh LDFLAGS)
might be a bit more efficient and easier to look at...
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
"Never contain programs so few bugs, as when no debugging tools are available!"
Niklaus Wirth
Reply to: