Hoist LDFLAGS_${ARCH} into bsd.port.mk

[emaste]

rP480026

[mmokhi]

while we are here I'd like to mention this relevant review which maybe some people have opinions on as well 😅

[emaste]

In D17221#367105, @mmokhi wrote:

while we are here I'd like to mention this relevant review which maybe some people have opinions on as well 😅

Indeed, that approach would be convenient but some folks didn't like it :)

That said, I now think it doesn't matter much: LDFLAGS_i386=-Wl,-znotext perhaps has less semantic meaning, but is just as much of a nop as D16817 when ld.bfd is in use.

[mat]

Mk/bsd.port.mk

2065

technically, the .if is useless, and if it was supposed to be meaningful, it should probably be .if !empty(LDFLAGS_${ARCH})

[emaste]

Mk/bsd.port.mk

2065

I was just following the approach for ${lang}FLAGS_${ARCH} above. Shall I take the .if out?

[emaste]

Mk/bsd.port.mk

2065

(Please explicit Approved by: portmgr if so)

[mat]

Mk/bsd.port.mk

2065

Yes, please, and the .if on line 2060, approved by portmgr.