From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB1B892D60
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 13:04:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BDB631C3D3
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 13:03:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 13:03:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 696C447344
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 13:03:58 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <6f9d974f-7a52-d3c3-3454-de1b4d695391@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 13:03:57 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.6.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20230210093924.64178-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <7b45a3b4-6bb3-9f37-f3af-a340abb39ddc@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <7b45a3b4-6bb3-9f37-f3af-a340abb39ddc@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.172 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A            -0.35 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] applied: Re: [PATCH qemu 1/2] d/rules: add missing
 export for CFLAGS
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 12:04:30 -0000

Am 14.02.23 um 10:07 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht:
> On 10/02/2023 10:39, Fiona Ebner wrote:
>> Otherwise, they don't affect the build of QEMU at all.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>>  debian/rules | 2 ++
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>>
> 
> applied, thanks!
> 
> not sure how many use the `noopt`, on debugging - for what it's mostly useful,
> building directly in the upstream source tree seems more fitting anyway, especially
> for modify-build-test runs or bisects. Maybe we could just drop any mention of it?  

Fine by me too. We could also make it work by using the --enable-debug
configure switch (stumbled upon that yesterday). Whichever you prefer.