<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Ryan Schmidt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ryandesign@macports.org" target="_blank">ryandesign@macports.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I would answer this exactly the other way round: autoconf based build systems are largely well behaved and will respond correctly to LDFLAGS being set, though it's certainly possible to use autoconf incorrectly such that that doesn't work. Simple handmade Makefiles are, on the other hand, much more likely to have been written without regard for this. </blockquote></div><br>I spent far too much time fixing up insane autoconf stuff at my last job, ranging from "ok, I can fake it this way" to "rewrite the whole thing because they managed to ensure that there is no way to inject additional LDFLAGS without breaking it". Makefiles can certainly be messed up, but a poorly written Makefile is often easier to fix than a bollixed autoconf in my experience.<br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates</div><div><a href="mailto:allbery.b@gmail.com" target="_blank">allbery.b@gmail.com</a> <a href="mailto:ballbery@sinenomine.net" target="_blank">ballbery@sinenomine.net</a></div><div>unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad <a href="http://sinenomine.net" target="_blank">http://sinenomine.net</a></div></div></div>
</div></div>