gpsd-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [gpsd-dev] [PATCH 1/4] Allow multiple options in LINKFLAGS.


From: Miroslav Lichvar
Subject: Re: [gpsd-dev] [PATCH 1/4] Allow multiple options in LINKFLAGS.
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:21:04 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:39:38AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <address@hidden>:
> > i don't think this change is correct.  pretty sure you want this instead:
> > 
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/391299
> > 
> > split up linking flags into multiple arguments
> > 
> > --- gpsd-3.8/SConstruct
> > +++ gpsd-3.8/SConstruct
> > @@ -214,7 +214,7 @@
> >              env.Replace(**{j: os.getenv(i)})
> >  for flag in ["LDFLAGS", "LINKFLAGS", "SHLINKFLAGS", "CPPFLAGS"]:
> >      if os.environ.has_key(flag):
> > -        env.MergeFlags({flag : [os.getenv(flag)]})
> > +        env.MergeFlags({flag : Split(os.getenv(flag))})
> >  
> >  
> >  # Placeholder so we can kluge together something like VPATH builds.
> > 
> > -mike
> 
> You know, now that I think about it, I think we've been around this
> merry-go-round before, years ago.  Both versions work for me.  
> 
> Would you and Miroslav please argue this out and fix it? Then
> add a comment explaining why it's done in whatever way is right
> and warning against reverting to a wrong version.

I just saw LINKFLAGS handled in the other for loop, so I switched it
and it worked for me. I don't really understand the difference between
the two, so if Mike says that's not how it should be done, he's
probably right. (please remove LINKFLAGS from the if line to make it
less confusing)

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]