Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530617 --- Comment #4 from Simon Wesp <cassmodiah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-21 03:44:22 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Then why do you run /sbin/ldconfig in post/postun scriptlets? the ldconfig scriptlets are in the lib* template. i forgot to remove them! > Why does a client binary require the static library package? Doesn't make sense, because they are built static in the binary. sorry > This doesn't make the package adhere to the optflags guidelines. The project's > internal CFLAGS override some of the optflags. It would be more clean if you > could patch mk/gcc.mk and append $RPM_OPT_FLAGS (or %optflags) to $CFLAGS. mh, I don't understand that -current- CC="gcc -c -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables" CFLAGS="-I$(echo .:../include:/usr/local/include:/usr/include|sed 's/:/ -I/g') -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600 -std=c99 -pedantic -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing -Wall -Wimplicit -Wmissing-prototypes -Wno-comment -Wno-missing-braces -Wno-parentheses -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-switch -Wpointer-arith -Wreturn-type -Wstrict-prototypes -Wtrigraphs -g -O1 -fno-builtin -fno-inline -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-optimize-sibling-calls -fno-unroll-loops -DIXPlint -O0 -DVERSION=\"0.5\" -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600" ../util/compile ixpc.o ixpc.c -new?- CC="gcc -c -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables" CFLAGS="-I$(echo .:../include:/usr/local/include:/usr/include|sed 's/:/ -I/g') -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600 -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -std=c99 -pedantic -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing -Wall -Wimplicit -Wmissing-prototypes -Wno-comment -Wno-missing-braces -Wno-parentheses -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-switch -Wpointer-arith -Wreturn-type -Wstrict-prototypes -Wtrigraphs -g -O1 -fno-builtin -fno-inline -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-optimize-sibling-calls -fno-unroll-loops -DIXPlint -O0 -DVERSION=\"0.5\" -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600" ../util/compile ixpc.o ixpc.c I know these outputs are different, but i printed it and tallied it. in the new is not a flag more or less then in the current and reverse. Or not? The order of the flags is important, or? In the new? output i sorted it fedora_optflags and upstream_flags. You said that upstream_flags override some fedora_optflags, so it should be upstream_flags and fedora_optflags, the secound mentoined which conflicts with the first mentoined will override the first mentoined, or? (This sounds logical to me) -upstream and fedora instead of fedora and upstream- CC="gcc -c -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables" CFLAGS="-I$(echo .:../include:/usr/local/include:/usr/include|sed 's/:/ -I/g') -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600 -std=c99 -pedantic -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing -Wall -Wimplicit -Wmissing-prototypes -Wno-comment -Wno-missing-braces -Wno-parentheses -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-switch -Wpointer-arith -Wreturn-type -Wstrict-prototypes -Wtrigraphs -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -g -O1 -fno-builtin -fno-inline -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-optimize-sibling-calls -fno-unroll-loops -DIXPlint -O0 -DVERSION=\"0.5\" -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600" ../util/compile ixpc.o ixpc.c This output is equal to the current-output... I'm confused, sorry! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review