Re: [gentoo-dev] LFS QA warnings coming soon to a build near you

[Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>]

On Sun, 31 May 2015 11:17:50 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> well if we're going to do arbitrary lists ;)
> (1) your options aren't mutually exclusive
> (2) implementing both are desirable

good to know your longterm plan :)
however, even if both can be done, i still don't see the point of going
through patching if we end up changing the default anyway.

> (3) considering the glibc effort has been stalled for over a year,
> (1) is something we can help accomplish and make reasonable progress
> on (4) glibc isn't the only one that implements LFS in a transparent
> backwards compatible manner

maybe the fact that some file operations are broken with glibc's
default settings on a somewhat popular fs would be a good argument to
un-stall it ?

> which leads me to the next part ... my first suggestion in the
> tracker is for autotool based projects to use AC_SYS_LARGEFILE
> because: (a) it supports a variety of systems
> (b) as new systems come up or bugs are found or whatever, the
> autoconf macro will improve and people eventually get those fixes for
> free (c) it does it all transparently for you -- add the macro and
> you're done (d) it fixes the package for all users, new & old
> 
> the reason i listed only the raw CPPFLAGS and autoconf macros are
> because those are the two i'm familiar with.  i don't know how other
> build systems (e.g. cmake) support this (assuming they do at all).
> if people have other recipes on hand, then it would be great to
> collect more there. -mike


yes, but that is not what i am discussing: unless i missed something,
they'll all end up one way or another adding the relevant defines;
whether it is done with an m4 macro, append-lfs-flags, a cmake function
or what else is an implementation detail of little interest to me trying
to understand why we don't simply change the default :)

Alexis.