Bugzilla Bug 185050

Hi Ali :)

As I'm gonna need pam_chroot to get some extra keyword and probably some stable
marking before marking pam 0.99 stable, I've checked pam_chroot for minor QA
issues.

The attached patch makes it respect LDFLAGS (and link with --as-needed) and
respects LD too.
I sincerely wonder if it would be simpler to build it manually in the ebuild,
but anyway this works :)

Thanks for the help!
Diego

Created an attachment (id=124620) [details]
Ebuild patch

Created an attachment (id=124622) [details]
pam_chroot-0.9.1-makefile.patch

(In reply to comment #0)
> Hi Ali :)
> 
> As I'm gonna need pam_chroot to get some extra keyword and probably some stable
> marking before marking pam 0.99 stable, I've checked pam_chroot for minor QA
> issues.
> 

hrm this sounds serious :p

> The attached patch makes it respect LDFLAGS (and link with --as-needed) and
> respects LD too.

I've modified the patch a bit and committed it. Here is what I've done:
- Added back -W* flags to CFLAGS. If upstream put them there they are there for
a reason and it's of crucial importance to detect if a pam module has problems
at compile time imo.
- Moved -x and --shared and removed LDFLAGS declaration so we won't need to
export LDFLAGS and just pass it to emake which looks more appropriate.

> I sincerely wonder if it would be simpler to build it manually in the ebuild,
> but anyway this works :)

Hehe, right :) I'll send your patch upstream, hopefully we'll get a nicer
Makefile with the next version.

> Thanks for the help!
> Diego
> 

Sure, feel free to poke me at IRC or reopen this one if I did anything wrong.

Ali