On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:01:00PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 05:44:33PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > > Moritz Muehlenhoff writes: > > > [This message has also been posted to gmane.linux.debian.devel.general.] > > > On 2007-12-25, Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Matthias Klose wrote: > > > >> This is a proposal to introduce a common set of compiler options which > > > >> can be set independently from the package, and passed/injected to the > > > >> package build process. It was first discussed at the last UDS; a > > > >> corresponding wiki page can be found at [1]. > > > > > > > > A change like that is more or less required for the planned introduction > > > > of security hardening features. Since noone really objected to the > > > > change > > > > outlined, I'd be interested in the way forward from here and what > > > > timeline > > > > is planned to set the changes into effect. > > > > > > Matthias, what's the status? > > > > thanks for the reminder; I did update the proposal and renamed the > > environment variables to what Colin Watson did suggest. Bug #465282 > > now has a patch for dpkg-architecture attached. > > That looks good to me. Maybe we should have individual default flags > per architecture, so that features, which are buggy or not fully > implemented on a given arch can be disabled so that the workarounds > don't need to be done by the maintainers across several rules files?
Hmm, I doubt that dpkg-dev should be the place to keep track of that. I mean, that probably depends on the version of gcc/g++/whatever used, so it's quite meaningless to make it dependent on the version of dpkg-dev you use. Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www: http://www.djpig.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
