On 12/7/22 11:48, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2022/12/07 00:35, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:You're setting CFLAGS on the make command line because you spotted that its value wasn't in control of the ports framework. But passing CFLAGS on the make command-line means that the CFLAGS assignement and subsequent appends (pkg-config --cflags ...) in upstream's Makefile are ignored, so the build fails. Your do-build target doesn't respect CFLAGS as set in the port Makefile, so the build succeeds.In this kind of situation I think it's fair to patch upstream's Makefile in order to satisfy the needs of both the ports framework and upstream's Makefile, introducing a new variable PORTS_CFLAGS.Your version is OK sthen@ with or without tweaks mentioned here, but it would be slightly neater to do this: -CFLAGS= -O3 -Os +CFLAGS?= -O3 -Os (that could go to the upstream tree easily enough if Thomas wants), and remove CFLAGS from MAKE_FLAGS; it's passed in via the environment anyway and this then does the right thing.IMHO we could do without the licence sentence in DESCR.agreed.
Thank you so much guys!!Please find my latest port attached to this Email. Consider the sentence about the
license gone.I included the ports Makefile from Jeremie, and patches to the project's Makefile.
While I was at it, I also patched away two typos from the manpage. I like it much better now! :) What are its chances of becoming part of the ports tree? Thomas
d11amp.v3.tgz
Description: application/compressed-tar
