Re: RFS: snake4 (updated package)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 2011-02-05 14:28, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 12:37:18AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> [snip]
>> Finally there is this part, which I asked you to look at:
>>
>> ifneq (,$(findstring noopt,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))
>> CFLAGS += -O0
>> else
>> CFLAGS += -O2
>> endif
>>
>> I do not see any changes to it, nor to the upstream Makefile. Does this
>> work as intended? That is, will
>>
>> DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=noopt dpkg-buildpackage
>>
>> produce an unoptimized package? As I recall I came to the conclusion
>> that it probably did not work, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
>
> Erm, why would it not work? It's a standard snippet used in the rules
> files of many packages in the Debian archive :)
>
Because the upstream Makefile ignores CFLAGS :P
> Recently it has started to gradually disappear for two reasons:
>
> 1. dpkg-buildpackage now examines DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS by itself and sets
> the appropriate CFLAGS and LDFLAGS (it also checks for "nostrip").
> Still, this is far from perfect, since a package may not necessarily
> be built using dpkg-buildpackage - e.g. during testing the maintainer
> may sometimes run "debian/rules clean", "debian/rules build", etc. by
> hand to see how it goes.
>
awesome, I did not know that :)
> 2. More recently, dpkg-dev 1.15.7 introduced the dpkg-buildflags tool
> which is perfect for this task :) You may take a look at the rules
> files for the mbuffer or timelimit packages to see how it's used.
>
Yeah, I assumed Ubuntu used the dpkg-buildflags approach for their new
linker flags.
> Hope that helps :)
>
> G'luck,
> Peter
>
~Niels
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=D5q9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: