Le Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 11:07:32PM +0200, Julien Cristau a écrit : > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 07:21:08 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > > Perhaps we can stop overriding this option ? For a lot of scientific > > packages, -O3 is chosen by the upstream author, and I always feel bad > > that if we make the programs slower by overriding it to -O2, it will > > reflect poorly on Debian as a distribution for scientific works. > > > For a lot of scientific packages, the upstream authors don't know what > they're doing. So I'm not sure that's much of an argument.
I think that such generalisations make Debian an unwelcoming place. Also, let's remember how this attitude backfires: Debian is also seen as a distribution that breaks upstream sofware by carrying a higher than average quantity of patches that the package maintainer doesn't fully understand. What do we lose if we follow upstream's compiler options ? As noted, the program may fail to build on other architectures than amd64. I do not think that the unavailability of such non-core packages on other architectures is a problem (no user base), and if they are a distraction to the porters, let's restrict the build to amd64 more systematically: less work for everybody. What we gain if we follow upstream's compiler options is that we will distribute a software that is closer to what the users run when they compile it themselves. This is the principle of least surprise, and I do not see a reason to deviate from it systematically, hence DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND should be used to override Upstream's defaults if needed, rather than the reverse. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140601231427.ga4...@falafel.plessy.net
