ppracer

[Adrian Reber]

On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 02:50:49PM +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 18:48 +0100, Adrian Reber wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 02:52:46PM +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > > > -make %{?_smp_mflags}
> > > > +make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" CXX_FLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
> > > > 
> > > > you could remove the autoconf dependency and the configure.in patch.
> > > 
> > > Not really because you would be missing the CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS needed for
> > > the used libraries.
> > 
> > I have played around with the position of the CFLAGS a bit and on my
> > system it doesn't matter if I put it in front, back of make or just
> > leave it completely away... I always get the same result... It seems as
> > it is already picked up during configure like it is supposed to be.
> 
> Have you tried this with backing out the optflags patch? 

Yes, the correct RPM_OPT_FLAGS are used by the compiler without any
changing or setting of CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS.

> Anyway, if you
> use CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS on the make command line, you overwrite what's
> previously been specified in the Makefile, i.e. what configure defined
> for the variables. This is regardless of whether you put CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS
> in front of make (as environment variables) or on the make command line
> (as make options). Unless you have a very compelling argument why make
> should somehow magically combine the CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS found in the
> Makefile and those specified on the command line, I'm not inclined to
> take out the patch ;-).

That's okay :-) I have nothing against the patch I just thought that it
should be possible to do it without a patch. But this is definitely not
something blocking the package in any way.

		Adrian