Re: [PATCH] Pass COPT and PROFILE to CXXFLAGS as well

Re: Michael Paquier 2019-01-23 <20190123004722.GE3873@paquier.xyz>
> >> Largely because I think it's an independent patch from the CXXOPT need
> >> from Christopher / Debian packaging.  It's a larger patch, that needs
> >> more docs etc.  If whoever applies that wants to backpatch it - I'm not
> >> going to protest, I just wouldn't myself, unless somebody pipes up that
> >> it'd help them.
> > 
> > Ah, I see.  No arguments against.

Fwiw I'm not attached to using COPT and friends, I just happend to
pick these because that was one way that worked. With what I've
learned now, PG_*FLAGS is the better approach.

> The new PGXS flags would be I think useful to make sure
> that things for CFLAGS and LDFLAGS get propagated without having to
> hijack the original flags, so I can handle that part.  Which one would
> be wanted though?
> - PG_CXXFLAGS
> - PG_LDFLAGS
> - PG_CFLAGS
> 
> I'd see value in all of them, still everybody has likely a different
> opinion, so I would not mind discarding the ones are not thought as
> that much useful.  New PGXS infrastructure usually finds only its way
> on HEAD, so I'd rather not back-patch that part.  No issues with the
> back-patch portion for CXXOPT from me as that helps Debian.

The attached patch adds these three.

Re backpatching, I would at least need them in PG11 because that's
what is going to be released with Debian buster. An official backpatch
to all supported versions would be nice, but I could also sneak in
that change into the Debian packages without breaking anything.

Christoph
-- 
Senior Berater, Tel.: +49 2166 9901 187
credativ GmbH, HRB Mönchengladbach 12080, USt-ID-Nummer: DE204566209
Trompeterallee 108, 41189 Mönchengladbach
Geschäftsführung: Dr. Michael Meskes, Jörg Folz, Sascha Heuer
Unser Umgang mit personenbezogenen Daten unterliegt
folgenden Bestimmungen: https://www.credativ.de/datenschutz