Re: [gentoo-dev] automatically killing invalid CFLAGS/warning about bad CFLAGS
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:49:24PM -0400, Patrick McLean wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alec Warner wrote:
Except you need a way for them to turn it off, and you do not currently
provide one. We can set default flags all we want, but I don't see
filtering 'bad' flags as necessarily our problem. If you want to say:
Hey we have had issues with people filing bogus bug reports with CFLAGS
that are completely inappropriate, so by default we check the sanity of
your CFLAGS, this is how you turn those checks off. then I'd be ok with it.
Most of the Ricers won't read it, and maybe you can print a warning that
CFLAG checking is disabled.
However leaving it on all the time merely imposes penalties on the power
users who wish to use your profile. Your profile is a tool that should
be useful to all classes of users.
The only flags that are actually removed are the _invalid_ flags. These are
the
flags that gcc does not accept, and will error out on. The bad flags, IE the
ones that the developers consider to be broken, but that are accepted by gcc
are
not filtered, the profile simply prints a warning and pauses for 5 seconds to
encourage users to read the warning, it does not automatically filter any
flags
that the compiler accepts.
The only flags that are actually removed are the flags that are invalid
_by themselves_. There are cases where flags are valid because of other
flags, such as anything following -X*.
Two other problems I see with the code:
CFLAGS=${CFLAGS//bad-flag} is in the ebuild quiz, if I recall correctly.
It's broken because it also removes valid flags that happen to contain
bad-flag as a substring.
Locale isn't forced to C, which means gcc may not spit out 'unrecognized
option' at all even for invalid flags.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] automatically killing invalid CFLAGS/warning about bad CFLAGS
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 01:47:41PM -0400, Patrick McLean wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Harald van D?k wrote:
The only flags that are actually removed are the flags that are invalid
_by themselves_. There are cases where flags are valid because of other
flags, such as anything following -X*.
Two other problems I see with the code:
CFLAGS=${CFLAGS//bad-flag} is in the ebuild quiz, if I recall correctly.
It's broken because it also removes valid flags that happen to contain
bad-flag as a substring.
Locale isn't forced to C, which means gcc may not spit out 'unrecognized
option' at all even for invalid flags.
There is a new version at http://dev.gentoo.org/~chutzpah/profile.bashrc that
should fix all these possible problems. Thanks for pointing them out, let me
know if you see anything else.
For the locale stuff, you're not exporting LC_ALL, which means if LC_ALL
is unset, and LC_MESSAGES is set, gcc might still spit out French (for
example) error messages. Also, it can be made simpler: changing the
command to `LC_ALL=C ${myprog} [EMAIL PROTECTED] -E - 21` should do it. LC_ALL
overrides LANG, so that can be left alone, and adding it right in front
of the command makes sure it gets exported, but not in the current
shell, so there's no need to manually restore it.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 05:38:48PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html If you choose the latter option, please ensure members of the Infrastructure project have reviewed and approved the proxy relationship to avoid having access cut off for both developers. In other words, if suspended dev A notices something's broken, and dev B (not suspended) agrees, dev B is required to leave it broken until infra makes a decision. I assume that's not the intent, so could that sentence please be reworded or dropped? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] gtk2 use flag must die
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 09:12:28PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote: On Sunday 02 April 2006 20:41, Mike Frysinger wrote: nothing personal, but who are you to say whether it's legit ? It's really not a question what's legit (heck, you started using this term, so blaming Olivier for using it is a bit odd), but what we (can and want to) support. Wouldn't it have been time for you to speak up, when the Gnome herd announced to deprecate Gtk1 support for applications that build again Gtk2!? Others did speak up at that time. The result: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/31641 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] gtk2 use flag must die
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 10:00:25PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote: On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:51, Harald van D??k wrote: Others did speak up at that time. The result: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/31641 Yeah, that was the one and only single voice. On gentoo-dev. I'd try to show more if I had IRC logs that far back. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
