Bill Leach wrote: > Joost Kooij wrote: > > > > On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, joost witteveen wrote: > > > > [A very interesting and informative expose, thanks Joost!] > > > > As it works now (as I understand) the rules makefile effectively tries to > > make the build independent of the actual machine it is built on. Of course > > this is great for maintainers who create a binary for distribution. > > > > It would also be nice to have an easy way to rebuild a package as user and > > have the building optimized for the particular machine that the user has. > > > > If the rules file could take standard parameters like the cc to use, > > optimization flags to use, another architecture altogether than the > > machine on which is built etc., that would be a nifty thing to have.
> I'm not so sure that it doesn't. That is certainly well within the > capabilities of make itself... The capabilities of make are of cource not the issue here. The point is that this would need about 1500 packages to be changed. But I guess one could just locally change the gcc specification file (don't know much about that, but I do know one can locally set certain options in there, to change gcc's defaults), and have it work for most packages (only the ones that really say "gcc -m486" or whatever will fail then. Most pages just call gcc without machine name). -- joost witteveen, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The upstream maintainer is allowed to do things different than Debian, but only if he has good reasons to do so. -- E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .