Subject: Re: c99
To: None <,>
From: Gilles Dauphin <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 12/06/2006 11:14:17
> From: Roland Illig <>
> 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:
> .c.o:
> 	@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.

I have a problem since c99 usage in different package with Solaris.
That's the third package broken by this add-on. (I simply remove c99 and works)

I test all other package I need.
Please have a look too and review.