On 5 August 2011 07:35, Lukas Fleischer <archlinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. But in general, I agree. We shouldn't enforce anything either unless we're trying to fix something. 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. [1] http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/ardour/trunk/PKGBUILD -- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10
