On Thu, Jul 03, 2003, julien Touche wrote: > >Err... as I said: "...as source (principle of pristine source files) and > >intentionally do not provide the enabling of the patch's functionality > >by default (because this breaks POLA IMHO too much)." If you want other > >packages built with gcc and this option enabled, you can use --define > >"use_cc /prefix/bin/gcc -f...." on the RPM command line (if that is what > >you want to achieve). > > maybe i misunderstood here, but POLA (have a link ? i don't find it) ask > to have no extra option enabled by default (right?).
No, sorry for using this acronym: POLA = Principle Of Least Astonishment. See for instance this URL (one of many Google gave out to me now) http://paulbeard.no-ip.org/movabletype/archives/000048.html for some more details. Sorry that I've described it not clear enough. My point just is that building GCC and have such a compiler option enabled by default might lead to more astonishment by the user than expected, because usually you use the GCC -fxxx options to explicitly enable something (although there exists also -fno-xxx for some things which are enabled by default, but those are all standard and known features while the SSP stuff is not part of this group IMHO). Hence I was not a fan of having an OpenPKG package option for supporting this. I think the SSP stuff (like the bounds stuff) should be something which is optionally built into GCC and has to be explicitly enabled under run-time by the end-user. Ralf S. Engelschall [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.engelschall.com ______________________________________________________________________ The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org User Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
