2012/6/25 Ben Hutchings wrote:
BTW, it's interesting that Fedora/CentOS use -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
and they use it in CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS.
Presumably as a workaround for build systems that do not respect
CPPFLAGS.
I actually noticed that because it's -Wp,-D..., not -D But I guess
you're
On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 14:09 +0300, Serge wrote:
2012/6/25 Ben Hutchings wrote:
BTW, it's interesting that Fedora/CentOS use -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
and they use it in CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS.
Presumably as a workaround for build systems that do not respect
CPPFLAGS.
I actually noticed that
On 27/06/12 14:20, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 14:09 +0300, Serge wrote:
2012/6/25 Ben Hutchings wrote:
BTW, it's interesting that Fedora/CentOS use -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
and they use it in CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS.
Presumably as a workaround for build systems that do not respect
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 11:29:56AM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 03:27:07PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
CFLAGS is an old, long-standing make thing. CPPFLAGS is newer and I
believe was introduced by Autoconf
I don't know the history of CPPFLAGS. It's possible it was
* Russ Allbery r...@debian.org [120624 23:13]:
When integrating with a build system that uses only one variable for
compilation flags, just pass the concatenation of CFLAGS and CPPFLAGS into
it. This is trivially done in debian/rules without modifying the upstream
source.
Build systems not
2012/6/24 Guillem Jover wrote:
Why? Just to have it autotools-compatible? If I was writing a custom
build system I would be thinking about using -Wp option, since that's
exactly why it's there for — to pass some options to the preprocessor
(or, being honest, I would ignore CPPFLAGS unless I
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 06:55:53PM +0300, Serge wrote:
2012/6/24 Guillem Jover wrote:
Why? Just to have it autotools-compatible? If I was writing a custom
build system I would be thinking about using -Wp option, since that's
exactly why it's there for — to pass some options to the
* Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk [120625 19:21]:
GNU make's implicit rules use CPPFLAGS. If other build systems or
overriden rules don't use it, it's a bug. This can of course be
worked around in debian/rules.
I'd not call it a bug. It's just some stranger behavior. Not more strange
than
2012/6/24 Russ Allbery wrote:
If you do, then... How should they do that? I.e. if I specify:
CPPFLAGS=blablabla hehehe hohoho
How should build system run gcc? Like that?
gcc blablabla hehehe hohoho -c -o test.o test.c
Yes.
Why? Just to have it autotools-compatible? If I was writing a
On Sun, 2012-06-24 at 11:07:05 +0300, Serge wrote:
2012/6/24 Russ Allbery wrote:
If you do, then... How should they do that? I.e. if I specify:
CPPFLAGS=blablabla hehehe hohoho
How should build system run gcc? Like that?
gcc blablabla hehehe hohoho -c -o test.o test.c
Yes.
Why?
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 03:27:07PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
CFLAGS is an old, long-standing make thing. CPPFLAGS is newer and I
believe was introduced by Autoconf
I don't know the history of CPPFLAGS. It's possible it was introduced by
Autoconf. However, it is now embedded into the implicit
* Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi [120624 12:30]:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 03:27:07PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
CFLAGS is an old, long-standing make thing. CPPFLAGS is newer and I
believe was introduced by Autoconf
I don't know the history of CPPFLAGS. It's possible it was introduced by
Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes:
* Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi [120624 12:30]:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 03:27:07PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
CFLAGS is an old, long-standing make thing. CPPFLAGS is newer and I
believe was introduced by Autoconf
I don't know the history of CPPFLAGS.
2012/6/19 José Luis Segura Lucas wrote:
(http://wiki.debian.org/Hardening#Notes_for_packages_using_CMake),
referred by lintian-info too. Using it I only need to define export
DEB_BUILD_HARDENING=1 on my debian/rules and it adds the CPPFLAGS to
CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS (Cmake ignores CPPFLAGS).
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:08:50PM +0300, Serge wrote:
(http://wiki.debian.org/Hardening#Notes_for_packages_using_CMake),
referred by lintian-info too. Using it I only need to define export
DEB_BUILD_HARDENING=1 on my debian/rules and it adds the CPPFLAGS to
CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS (Cmake
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:08:50PM +0300, Serge wrote:
2012/6/19 José Luis Segura Lucas wrote:
(http://wiki.debian.org/Hardening#Notes_for_packages_using_CMake),
referred by lintian-info too. Using it I only need to define export
DEB_BUILD_HARDENING=1 on my debian/rules and it adds the
2012/6/23 Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
They're for `cpp` tool which is The C PreProcessor (check `man cpp`).
So as far as I understand cmake (and every other build system) MUST
ignore the CPPFLAGS, right?
Do you say that cpp(1) is not used in the build process of C and C++
software?
Yes,
Serge sergem...@gmail.com writes:
2012/6/23 Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
Do you say that cpp(1) is not used in the build process of C and C++
software?
Yes, unless you actually call `cpp` directly by your build scripts somewhy.
Gcc uses internal preprocessor by default.
Same thing in
2012/6/23 Adam Borowski wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the CPPFLAGS have nothing to do with C++.
They're for `cpp` tool which is The C PreProcessor (check `man cpp`).
So as far as I understand cmake (and every other build system) MUST ignore
the CPPFLAGS, right?
They SHOULD
Serge sergem...@gmail.com writes:
Or you mean that they should run `gcc`/`g++` with CPPFLAGS?
Yes.
If you do, then... How should they do that? I.e. if I specify:
CPPFLAGS=blablabla hehehe hohoho
How should build system run gcc? Like that?
gcc blablabla hehehe hohoho -c test.o test.c
Hi!
I'm intending to package a new software for Debian [1]. I just completed
most of the package work and have a lintian-error free package, but I
still have a warning that is driving me crazy.
I have read the output of lintian-info -t about
hardening-no-fortify-functions, and it helps a lot.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 04:04:31PM +0200, José Luis Segura Lucas wrote:
I have read the output of lintian-info -t about
hardening-no-fortify-functions, and it helps a lot. The software uses
Cmake as build tool, and the hardening-wrapper solution solved some
lintian warnings, but not the latest
El 19/06/12 16:10, Andrey Rahmatullin escribió:
Why do you need hardening-wrapper? You should use flags set by
dpkg-buildflags.
Because that
(http://wiki.debian.org/Hardening#Notes_for_packages_using_CMake),
referred by lintian-info too. Using it I only need to define export
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 04:42:33PM +0200, José Luis Segura Lucas wrote:
Why do you need hardening-wrapper? You should use flags set by
dpkg-buildflags.
Because that
(http://wiki.debian.org/Hardening#Notes_for_packages_using_CMake),
referred by lintian-info too. Using it I only need to
El 19/06/12 16:56, Andrey Rahmatullin escribió:
I see several solutions there, and the hardening-wrapper one is in my
opinion the worst one: it adds a build dependency and it uses own set of
configuration variables, not compatible with dpkg-buildflags ones.
Yes, it adds a build-dependency...
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 05:04:46PM +0200, José Luis Segura Lucas wrote:
I see several solutions there, and the hardening-wrapper one is in my
opinion the worst one: it adds a build dependency and it uses own set of
configuration variables, not compatible with dpkg-buildflags ones.
Yes, it
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 04:04:31PM +0200, José Luis Segura Lucas wrote:
repository but not still in a numbered version, so, I tried to use the
latest known version and add a ~TIMESTAMPgit... to the minor version
number, but debuild warns me about the version 0.1.0~2012..git-1 is
less than
27 matches
Mail list logo
