Re: [PATCH] respect build CPPFLAGS

["Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>]

On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> it's making the flag handling in the build system consistent, and we're talking
> all of 1 line and 1 additional variable expansion. ?"complicating" is kind of
> stretching the definition ...

It also complies with the GNU Coding Standard.
http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Command-Variables

I am for this change, I think that having CPPFLAGS and other flags
work consistently is a useful feature as long as it doesn't conflict
with the requirements of the package in question e.g. glibc.

I can see an argument for *more* control over where options are added
to the build commands, but I see no good argument *against* what is
effectively a good practice of supporting CPPFLAGS per the GNU coding
standard.

Cheers,
Carlos.