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 attachment 124620 [details, diff] Ebuild patch
Created attachment 124622 [details, diff] 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
