LD_PATHS

[Till Straumann]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:

>On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 17:25 -0700, Till Straumann wrote:
>  
>
>>Ralf.
>>
>>I found this comment
>>
>>2002-11-13	Ralf Corsepius <corsepiu at faw.uni-ulm.de>
>>
>>	* compilers/gcc-target-default.cfg: Remove obsolete reference to
>>	src/libxil/Makefile.
>>	Comment out LD_PATHS from LDFLAGS (Now implicitly handled by gcc
>>	-spec).
>>
>>in the cvslog for c/src/make/compilers/gcc-target-default.cfg
>>    
>>
>I don't recall the details of this change anymore.
>
>  
>
>>How is that supposed to work? It broke applications that set LD_PATHS
>>in their makefiles
>>    
>>
>Here you say it: "application ... makefiles"
>
>gcc-target-default.cfg is part of OAR's brain-dead application makefile
>template system and meanwhile (for several years) is not used by the
>source tree anymore. As I have said dozens of times before, if I was to
>decide about it, the application makefile template system was abandoned
>years ago.
>
>gcc-target-default.cfg suffers from the same flaws as all other
>application makefiles: RTEMS has no chance to know what application want
>nor which variables they want to use, and therefore can't care about it.
>
>I.e. if something inside of the makefile template system doesn't meet
>your applications' demands, change/edit it to your demands.
>
>So I guess, all the changelog entry above is referring to is
>streamlining gcc-target-default.cfg to what the RTEMS makefiles use
>themselves.
>
>  
>
>> [README qualifies LD_PATHS as a makefile variable].
>>    
>>
>Which README? Such a statement is wrong and would qualify as a
>documentation bug.
>
The <rtems_install_top>/make/README. The problem is that there _are_ 
applications
[I have a few] out there that use the makefile system and they rely on 
what that
system has done in the past, so please don't break it. Call it a 
documentation bug
but since that documentation bug has been out there for a long time it's 
dangerous
to assume that nobody uses the documented features...

Till

>
>Ralf
>
>
>  
>