Re: [arch-general] Enforcing CFLAGS in PKGBUILDs

On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 03:23:44PM +0800, Ray Rashif wrote:

On 5 August 2011 07:35, Lukas Fleischer wrote:

...

My own opinion is that we shouldn't patch anything here. While using the same optimization flags for all packages might result in some kind of consistency, one of our main guidelines - not to do any unnecessary modifications - is kind of violated here. We should trust upstream having chosen any explicit optimization flags with care (in some cases, enforcing optimization flags might even lead to heavy performance impacts - although this is unlikely to happen). I am aware that there are some corner cases for sure, for which I'd say overriding CFLAGS is okay. However, this shouldn't be common practice, imho.

Opinions?

I have wondered about this before. Upstream developers should include in their code/buildsystem proper conditional CFLAGS, i.e append to system CFLAGS, override _only_ what they want to override, and don't append anything already part of the system CFLAGS.

For eg. some developers like to enforce -O3, so they should first get the system CFLAGS and override it's -O*, if any.

Well, just appending their own flags (which is what most Makefiles do) is no problem here as only the last "-O" option will matter (check my reply to Allan).

But in general, I agree. We shouldn't enforce anything either unless we're trying to fix something.

+1.

The ardour PKGBUILD does this [1], maybe it shouldn't, but I assume the -O3 becomes redundant when we pass system CFLAGS to the build as a configuration flag.

Yeah, I agree that patching is okay if it's necessary in order to build a package (or in order not to break anything). That's what I mentioned above.