-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_haxx.se> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Peter Pentchev wrote:
>
> > if a project supports a separation between CPPFLAGS and CFLAGS, then -I, -U,
> > -D and friends should indeed be passed in CPPFLAGS.
>
> I'm bound to agree. I would like a stronger use case that really cannot
> adapt
> to that rule before loosening our checks.
>
No problem. I totally agree that they _should_ I was just curious
whether it was really c-ares's job to be _enforcing_ that. It feels a
little out of scope, and I haven't come across any other projects doing
so. It's also handled by special m4 macros shipped with c-ares, not by
any core autotools macros, which is why I brought it up.
Sincerely,
Karl Palsson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)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=5WYK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on 2015-06-29