Hi,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
mentions only %optflags to be required for packages but I noticed that
%configure sets LDFLAGS to a value different than %optflags:
rpm --eval %configure
[...]
LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS:--Wl,-z,relro }"; expo
Till Maas wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
>
> mentions only %optflags to be required for packages but I noticed that
> %configure sets LDFLAGS to a value different than %optflags:
>
> rpm --eval %configure
> [...]
> LDFLAGS="${LD
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 04:01:15 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
> >
> > mentions only %optflags to be required for packages but I noticed that
> > %configure sets LDFLAGS to a value different
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 04:01:15 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>> We already have one, it's called %{__global_ldflags}. You are indeed
>> supposed to set LDFLAGS of handwritten makefiles to that. The guidelines
>> need to be updated.
>
> Also
On 10/22/2013 10:26 AM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 04:01:15 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
We already have one, it's called %{__global_ldflags}. You are indeed
supposed to set LDFLAGS of handwritten makefiles to that. The guidel
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:26:18 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> In many cases the values aren't picked up from the environment but
> need to be passed in by other means (such as arguments to make etc).
Okay. "make -e …" could be run in that case as a work-around. But
overriding Makefile variables compl
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Better would be that
> the Makefile inherits from values passed in via Make or the env.
Sure.
> %configure || :
[...]
> To repeat from the earlier reply, one may want to take precautions,
> so when a future upgrade adds a configure scr
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:06:33 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> IMHO adding precaution cruft like "[ -f configure ] && exit -1 [...]"
> is a sign of the packager doing package updates too carelessly if
> (s)he doesn't even trust oneself or others to check if the upstream
> build system has changed betwe
On Sun, 2013-10-20 at 23:42 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
>
> mentions only %optflags to be required for packages but I noticed that
> %configure sets LDFLAGS to a value different than %optflags:
As no
Am 22.10.2013 16:47, schrieb Adam Jackson:
> On Sun, 2013-10-20 at 23:42 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
>>
>> mentions only %optflags to be required for packages but I noticed that
>> %configure sets LDFLAGS to
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Agreed. It's a trade-off. Guards aren't bad, but in this case their
> benefit is questionable. It probably doesn't work completely anyway, since
> if the build framework uses Autotools, there likely are no pregenerated
> Makefiles, and only a successful run on the configur
I still can't see any updates in the guideline, what should we do for
this kind of case? Still allow no ldflag macro inserted?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
12 matches
Mail list logo
