[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101008215559.GA18828@openwall.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 01:55:59 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Patch for Makefile, concerning Solaris x86
Robert,
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 05:42:58PM -0400, Robert Harris wrote:
> I was thinking about doing it in the global LDFLAGS, but that would affect
> all builds. Wouldn't that cause a problem? (I haven't checked yet, if it
> would).
Of course, it would break builds on most non-Solaris systems.
I'm sorry, I've used poor wording below. By "global" LDFLAGS, I meant
non-program-specific ones - that is, overrides for the LDFLAGS value
that you specify in solaris-* targets, as opposed to overrides of some
new make variable that would be specific to the tgtsnarf program (such a
variable doesn't exist currently). I argued that using the existing
non-program-specific LDFLAGS was sort of OK this time because the jumbo
patch was already doing it for other libraries that would otherwise need
to be program-specific. If we're to improve upon this, we'd need to do
it for more than just tgtsnarf anyway.
> From: Solar Designer [mailto:solar@...nwall.com]
...
> All solaris-* targets need it (this means solaris-sparc* and *-cc ones
> as well), albeit only for the tgtsnarf program in the jumbo patch. It
> is easier to add the options to the global LDFLAGS rather than to try
> to do it for tgtsnarf only. In fact, the jumbo patch is already dirty
> in this aspect anyway - it similarly unnecessarily links some programs
> against OpenSSL. So we can continue this "tradition" for now...
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
