Re: [NEW/WIP] Qflow porting // [3/7] graywolf

Hi Brian,

On 08/15/18 23:07, Brian Callahan wrote:
[...]
>> Done; I put there "-Wno-return-type" too; this is more readable
>> (instead of jumping between the Makefile and the patch); what do you
>> think?
>>
>
> I'm ok with this. You maybe want to work with upstream to fix it so you
> don't need to silence the warnings, though :)
>
>> I would be tempted to use -D variable assignments also for
>> include_directories and link_directories, if possible; but I do not
>> know if such variables exists... I tried with CMAKE_INCLUDE_PATH,
>> without success. Let me know.
>>
> You can add the include directories right into -DCMAKE_C_FLAGS. If
> you're going to put it into the port Makefile, it'll look like
> -I${X11BASE}/include. For the linker flags
> -DCMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS="${LDFLAGS} -L${X11BASE}/lib ..." (and maybe
> -DCMAKE_SHARED_LINKER_FLAGS="${LDFLAGS} -L${X11BASE}/lib ..." for the
> shared library if necessary).

After double checking, I think that preserving the include_directories
and link_directories lines in CMakeLists.txt makes the "Really really
not C99" comment more in line with the CONFIGURE_ARGS contents.

So I would ask for OKs for the port as it is.

All the best

--
Alessandro DE LAURENZIS
[mailto:just22@atlantide.t28.net]
Web: http://www.atlantide.t28.net
LinkedIn: http://it.linkedin.com/in/delaurenzis