Subject: Re: c99
To: Jan Schaumann <>
From: Roland Illig <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 12/05/2006 21:47:40
Jan Schaumann wrote:
> Roland Illig <> wrote:
>>I would add this to _WRAP_EXTRA_ARGS.CC instead of CFLAGS, since that is 
>>guaranteed to survive even packages that ignore the user's choice for 
> We should see if we can have the wrapper display _WRAP_EXTRA_ARGS.CC
> when running.  I find it somewhat comfusing if the command-line executed
> shows 'gcc -whatever', but it actually runs 'gcc -std=c99 -whatever'.

That's difficult. Those packages using the old autoconf-2.13 configure 
scripts will fail when the compiler writes something to stderr. And when 
the compiler is called with -E, we cannot write to stdout.

I agree that it's confusing when you don't see what is done, but only 
something similar. A friend of mine had written a Makefile like this:

	@echo compiling with ${CC} ${CPPFLAGS} ${CFLAGS} ...

notice the different spelling: CFLA_G_S vs. CFLA_C_S. That was quite 
funny, since it had been done intentionally.

But since obfuscating things is not in the list of pkgsrc's goals, we 
should indeed try to make the wrapper output more easily accessible to 
the user.