* ERSEK Laszlo <la...@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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org