On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:00:55 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Afaik it has always been the way that *sane* LDFLAGS are to be > respected, but exceptions exist of course and it's up to the > maintainer to mangle or clear your LDFLAGS, if deemed necessary. I'd > like to know, why Mark asked to bring this question up here. > Shouldn't this be common sense!?
The way it is currently: Packages ignoring CFLAGS without a *very* good reason (and 'upstream thinks they know better' is rarely a very good reason, especially when upstream supposedly knowing better leads to v7 builds on v9 systems) need to be fixed. Packages ignoring LDFLAGS can be fixed if the maintainer feels like it, but there's no requirement to do so and filing bugs about it is frowned upon. Until recently, LDFLAGS have been put in the "anyone using these is a ricer" category. Unfortunately, the misguided promotion of 'as-needed' despite its massive design flaws has lead people to think that setting LDFLAGS is in some way useful or cool. I expect next someone will try to find a way to force 'ASFLAGS' onto everyone... -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
