Your message dated Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:10:10 +0200
with message-id <20120430071010.ga24...@gaara.hadrons.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#642573: dpkg-buildflags: include $(getconf LFS_CFLAGS)?
has caused the Debian Bug report #642573,
regarding dpkg-buildflags: include $(getconf LFS_CFLAGS)?
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
642573: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=642573
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: lfs
Three cheers for the new dpkg-buildflags interface!
I would like to suggest an addition to the default flags: the output of
getconf LFS_CFLAGS should be included in the CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS variables. On
32-bit archs, this gives the following:
-D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
(on 64-bit archs, it returns an empty string.)
I make this suggestion because we had lfs as a release goal nearly a decade
ago already, and we've never really had very good coverage for this and made
very little progress since then. Turning this on by default would make a
big dent.
However, there are some major risks with this being a default. Any library
that exports off_t in its interface would suddenly have an ABI change as a
result of this flag being set! So if this were to be enabled by default, it
would need to be carefully coordinated.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 05:10:49 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> tag 642573 wontfix
> thanks
> As such I think this bug report should be tagged wontfix (or closed),
> doing the first for now.
Ok, closing this now, although I'll be filing a separate bug report on
lintain so that we can track packages currently not LFS enabled.
thanks,
guillem
--- End Message ---
