On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:11:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > What's the argument for patching all of the upstream rules files to read > CPPFLAGS, instead of simply injecting our CPPFLAGS contents into CFLAGS?
Because it's the correct way to handle the flags. CFLAGS are for the compiler, CPPFLAGS for the preprocessor. And by patching it upstream other distributions and users won't have to do the same to correct this non-standard behavior and can just rely on the flags working as they should. > I'm probably going to do the latter unless there's a good (practical) > argument not to in this case. Both ways work fine. If the build system is complex and difficult to fix I'd also suggest injecting CPPFLAGS into CFLAGS. But as it's easy to fix in this case (and you already have a finished patch ready to be sent to the upstream devs and for debian/patches/) I think it's a good idea to fix the real problem - the upstream build system. Regards, Simon -- + privacy is necessary + using gnupg http://gnupg.org + public key id: 0x92FEFDB7E44C32F9
pgpPe4Fn4lZPP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
