The CFLAGS should go

Greg Schafer gschafer at
Wed May 7 20:01:19 PDT 2003

On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 11:00:06AM -0500, Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> >I remember Matthias Benkmann being strongly against the LDFLAGS. If 
> >it's policy not to have policy in the book then they should also be in 
> >the seperate hint.
> >
> >Reasons for LDFLAGS in the book:
> >- saves space, compiling time?
> >- every bit in PLFS accounted for so it doesn't affect the final LFS 
> >build
> >
> >Reasons against LDFLAGS in the book:
> >- another possibility for typo's (c'mon, everybody makes 'm ;)
> >- building should start from a clean environment to prevent errors; 
> >this is what MSB protested against. I don't know if his argument still 
> >stands but it has convinced me not to use LDFLAGS during the building 
> >of the toolchain.
> I agree. LDFLAGS is an optimization. So its not for the book to specify.

I disagree. I fail to see how LDFLAGS is an optimization. The main reason I
suggest removing it from the various make command lines in the book is to
reduce the typos and silly support requests. People who know what they're
doing can use it freely.

I remember MSB being against "make -e" (quite rightfully) but don't remember
anything about LDFLAGS. Anyhow, it's a moot point if Gerard flicks it.

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list