Subject: Re: fluxbox and -funroll-loops
To: None <>
From: Jan Schaumann <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 09/01/2004 09:27:44
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"Johnny C. Lam" <> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:30:12AM -0400, Jan Schaumann wrote:
> >=20
> > I don't think that's necessary.  I don't believe that our packages
> > should try to compile every package with every possible CFLAG and then
> > add the necessary transforms just in case the user chooses to add that
> > CFLAG manually.


> We don't have to go out of our way to hunt down these bad
> option/package pairs, but when we notice them, it's rather easy to
> just fix it.

I guess so.  It just felt like we're trying too hard to prevent the user
from shooting him/her in the foot.  This might lead to more and more
complex Makefiles.

Just a friendly warning. :-)


Except most of the good bits were about frogs, I remember that.
You would not believe some of the things about frogs.

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)