From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:49:59 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Which order: $(MAKE) $(TARGET_CONFIGURE_OPTS) or $(TARGET_CONFIGURE_OPTS) $(MAKE) In-Reply-To: References: <20170329213552.6455f568@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20170329214959.54454e17@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:43:18 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > But, on the other hand, if a package would do: > > CFLAGS = -I../include > > then we cannot use either approach because one approach will ignore > the -I../include, and the other will ignore our own settings. In that > case, a patch of the package is required, right? Correct. But I guess in many cases we don't realize when the package "ignores" our CFLAGS, because there is nothing in our CFLAGS that is really mandatory for the thing to build. Of course, the fact that our CFLAGS may be ignored means that the package may not have the correct optimization level, debugging level, stack smashing protection flags, etc. I remember at some Buildroot meeting, we discussed the idea of injecting a fake CFLAGS, and then checking in the toolchain wrapper that we have this fake flag. But I'm sure this would cause lots and lots of false positives. > Is there a recommendation for the case that the package allows either way? I don't really have a good suggestion. We tend to fix those issues on a case by case basis, with no well defined "best practice". Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com