-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 01:32:44PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >On Wednesday 17 June 2009 10:32:01 Martin-Éric Racine wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Peter Eisentraut<[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Sunday 22 June 2008 18:11:39 Martin-Éric Racine wrote: >> >> class/langcore.mk sets -g -Wall -O2 without checking whether CC >> >> can actualy process these options. For instance, -g produces >> >> output that is partially GDB-specific. On most GNU software, >> >> autotools perform these check for us and set CC=gcc autogamically. >> >> On other software, CC is often left unset. This is mostly okay on >> >> a Debian system, because the presumption is that CC=gcc, but we >> >> can never be sure of what parallel compilers, etc. someone might >> >> run, so it would be desirable for class/langcore.mk to set CC=gcc >> >> is it is unset. >> > >> > Do you have a concrete counterexample where the current code does >> > not work? >> >> In the case where an upstream tarball comes with a single C file and >> no Makefile, the only option a maintainer has is to create a manual >> build target in debian/rules to compile the binary and to include >> class/langcore.mk to always use the standard Debian build options. >> However, class/langcore.mk includes GNU-specific options without >> checking that the compiler supports them (or at least setting CC=gcc >> to ensure that it does), so the build is not guaranteed to succeed. > >After further reflection, I think we should change something here. > >I turns out that /usr/bin/cc is an alternative, and so we cannot assume >that it is gcc. And although it is not explicitly spelled out in the >policy, the build essential list strongly hints that packages are >supposed to be built with gcc by default. > >So I think it would be easy and safe to set CC = gcc near where we set >CFLAGS, and the same for C++. > >Another advantage of this would be that packages built with cdbs don't >use a different compiler invocation than those built without.
A build environment using a different C compiler than the default gcc as cc is broken with respect to Package compilation. (I believe that to be in Policy somewhere too). I do not see it as the task of CDBS to fix/overrule broken build environments. - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEAREDAAYFAko+HCkACgkQn7DbMsAkQLh/CACeJUcUPFXEjL7ZTPPjCGwvXZsY RbgAnAmMkVNR944byYraY/XxpFByL4XE =Pn/4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
