Re: Michael Paquier 2019-01-23 <20190123004722.GE3873@paquier.xyz>
> >> Largely because I think it's an independent patch from the CXXOPT need
> >> from Christopher / Debian packaging. It's a larger patch, that needs
> >> more docs etc. If whoever applies that wants to backpatch it - I'm not
> >> going to protest, I just wouldn't myself, unless somebody pipes up that
> >> it'd help them.
> >
> > Ah, I see. No arguments against.
Fwiw I'm not attached to using COPT and friends, I just happend to
pick these because that was one way that worked. With what I've
learned now, PG_*FLAGS is the better approach.
> The new PGXS flags would be I think useful to make sure
> that things for CFLAGS and LDFLAGS get propagated without having to
> hijack the original flags, so I can handle that part. Which one would
> be wanted though?
> - PG_CXXFLAGS
> - PG_LDFLAGS
> - PG_CFLAGS
>
> I'd see value in all of them, still everybody has likely a different
> opinion, so I would not mind discarding the ones are not thought as
> that much useful. New PGXS infrastructure usually finds only its way
> on HEAD, so I'd rather not back-patch that part. No issues with the
> back-patch portion for CXXOPT from me as that helps Debian.
The attached patch adds these three.
Re backpatching, I would at least need them in PG11 because that's
what is going to be released with Debian buster. An official backpatch
to all supported versions would be nice, but I could also sneak in
that change into the Debian packages without breaking anything.
Christoph
--
Senior Berater, Tel.: +49 2166 9901 187
credativ GmbH, HRB Mönchengladbach 12080, USt-ID-Nummer: DE204566209
Trompeterallee 108, 41189 Mönchengladbach
Geschäftsführung: Dr. Michael Meskes, Jörg Folz, Sascha Heuer
Unser Umgang mit personenbezogenen Daten unterliegt
folgenden Bestimmungen: https://www.credativ.de/datenschutz
