I want to add documentation for this change, and found this proposal
self-contradictory.
> == Summary ==
> Create a corresponding macro for each compiler flag in the
> redhat-rpm-config macro file and create "extra flag" macros to make it
> easier for packages to add and remove compiler flags.
> == Benefit to Fedora ==
> * It will provide a standard way to disable existing compiler flags or
> enable new ones that is more simple and robust than the existing echo
> + sed solution.
(I believe this is no longer relevant to the second version of the
proposal.)
> * It will make it easier to determine which packages disable or add
> compiler flags by doing a simple grep of the spec files.
> * It will make it easier for toolchain developers to experiment with
> adding new flags to the distribution as this can be done with a simple
> macro definition instead of patching redhat-rpm-config.
The main problem are these two goals. I don't think you can have it
both ways.
Here's a concrete example. The proposal mentions compiler-rt.spec as a
potential use case. Say it changes
%global optflags %(echo %{optflags} -D_DEFAULT_SOURCE)
to:
%global _pkg_extra_cflags -D_DEFAULT_SOURCE
While this is arguably useful (second use case), after this change, it
is no longer possible to inject additional build flags via
_pkg_extra_cflags from the outside (third use case).
Do we actually need two sets of macros, with distinct use cases?
Thanks,
Florian
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
