From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Rethinking -L switch handling and construction of LDFLAGS
In-reply-to: <20180401192535.pariji2i3aw4rvf4@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <25214.1522604295@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20180401174338.dgwcclz3ljiumaeq@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <25881.1522605305@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20180401192535.pariji2i3aw4rvf4@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Sun, 01 Apr 2018 12:25:35 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <11430.1522611733.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2018 15:42:13 -0400
Message-ID: <11431.1522611733@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-04-01 13:55:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm hesitant to do that because LDFLAGS is a name known to make's
>> default rules, and I don't want to bet that we're not relying on
>> those default rules anywhere.

> FWIW, postgres builds cleanly with -r -R in MAKELAGS.

That's pretty hard to believe.  Why would we bother to override every
default rule?  Even if it's true today, I would not accept it as project
policy that we must do so.  Perhaps more to the point, I would strongly
object to any design in which the standard Make variables don't mean
what the default rules expect them to mean.  That's just a recipe for
confusing people and creating hard-to-spot bugs.

			regards, tom lane