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=668243 --- Comment #11 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-20 01:37:29 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > (In reply to comment #8) > > > (In reply to comment #7) > > > > 2 MUSTFIXES: > > > > > > * Package doesn't honor RPM_OPT_FLAGS. > > > > > > > > The configure script plays nasty games with *FLAGS in a way they overwrite > > > > Fedora's *FLAGS. > > > > > > > > Excerpt from my build.log: > > > > ... gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../include -I../include -I../include -O2 -g -pipe > > > > -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector > > > > --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -O3 -ggdb3 -Wall .... > > > > > > > > Note: ... "RPM_OPT_FLAGS"... -O3 -ggdb3. > > > > > > > > The later overwrite flags from RPM_OPT_FLAGS. > > > > > > > > One way to fix this is to sed out the stuff which is responsible for this from > > > > configure.ac: e.g. by adding this before autogen.sh: > > > > > > > > sed -i -e 's,OPT_CFLAGS="-O3",OPT_CFLAGS=,' \ > > > > -e 's,GDB_FLAGS="-ggdb3",GDB_FLAGS=,' configure.ac > > > > > > I disagree with this approach as policy allow flags override. > > > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags > > You are mis-interpreting this. > > On what base sorry? Common sense and the fact I know about the intentions behind this paragraph. > None of the gcc security flags are overridden and so far you havenÂt given any > technical reason on why optimization flags should not. -OX and -g rsp. -gX are GCC flags which comprise many other GCC flags underneath. What they exactly do changes over time and is machine/archtecture/OS dependent. => Consistent usage of these flags is vital to a distribution. Openly said, I wonder why I have to explain this. > > > > > > Should one of you be upstream, I'd seriously advise you to rework the > > > > configure.ac and to start making "make dist" working to ship proerly packaged > > > > tar-balls instead of .git snapshots. > > > > > > make dist works just fine upstream, what problem are you experiencing exactly? > > The tarball is improperly packaged - E.g. its lack all auto*generated files, > > which forces the Fedora packager to explictly pull in the autotools. > > Many upstreams do not ship autogenerated files and pull in autotools at build > time. Yes, There are many people who are abusing the autotools, like due to lack of understanding. > If this is an issue please provide a pointer to the Fedora packaging > guideline that enforces upstream to behave as Fedora requires and/or mass-file > bugs after policy has been made clear. This isn't an issue to Fedora - It's an issue to such package's upstreams and to those people who try to maintain such packages in Fedora. Running the autotools during builds simply means exposing people to non-determinisms. In other words, everytime somebody uses a different version of the autotools than upstream, this person is likely to face issues from this. Rest assured, these issues are not of a theoretical nature, they are real. > Fedora Policy has only one draft to address that issue and it is still under > discussion on what the correct behavior should be in those cases. As long the > draft is not approved as official Policy, it cannot be enforced. Not much of a problem - *I* don't have much of a problem with upstream being so rude to expose their user base to avoidable risks nor do I have a problem with fedora maintainers shooting themself into their own foot. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review