-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 12/01/2010 06:16 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Dec 1, 2010, at 12:00 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
this is such a fundamental thing that i'm sure there has to be an elegant solution to this but i never came across one. the PD_LDFLAGS seems a bit like a kludge to me.
What optimization do you need to include in LDFLAGS? I can't think of
"optimization" being a general term here for whatever tweaks the user sees fit. with CFLAGS these are definitely optimizations, with LDFLAGS i don't know.
any. I think the best source of info for this would be to see what Debian builders set as LDFLAGS.
the thing is, some of them (e.g. CDBS) do set LDFLAGS to "" (nothing). this is when i discovered the problem when trying to cdbs'ify pd-arraysize, because the build would fail. (never mind my cdbs'ifying that; i'm trying to build a common cdbs-snippet for more easy packaging in debian)
But if you really want to have all the possibilities for overriding things, then go with autotools, especially with automake. They generate makefiles that have lots of room for customization. From my point of view the Makefile template was never intended to work in all situations, only simple libraries that don't have special dependencies.
i'm really not trying to use autotools here, as that is definitely an overkill in most situations. however, afaict, CFLAGS and LDFLAGS are commonly meant to be settable by the user, so setting those should not break the build system.
the problem also is not template Makefile centric (though i stumbled over the problem with the template Makefile in this special case; however, in the past, i have stumbled over this problem with other Makefiles as well) autotools will kind of automatically take care of those things, but since this is such a common case, i do believe that there must be a elegant, vanilla make solution for the problem.
i'm really not trying to invent problems but to solve them.
fgmasdr IOhannes