Re: Thoughts on dpkg-cross 2.0 configuration format
> >> I spend some thoungs on the new flexible configuration scheme. My
> >> fontconfig version uses XML as configuration language. I'm familiar
> >> with XML (Python, C++) and would like to propose to use Perl as
> >> configuration languages instead of writting a new parser.
> Why not use sh or bash as the language for the config files?
> Makes it more compatible with extant build systems, as well as
> more extensible (IMHO). It might be as simple as making dpkg-cross
> pay attention to more environment variables and then defining some
> convenience functions. FAI has an approach something like this.
> Or perhaps the config file can be simply something that spits
> out a shell script to then be executed? My main concern is that
> tying ourselves to any one set of syntax is... shortsighted.
Currently dpkg-cross configuration is used for two things:
- setting environment variables (/etc/dpkg/cross-compile)
- giving helper information for tool autodetection (/etc/dpkg/crosstools)
(there are also /etc/dpkg/cross-config.* that are for autotools, and in
autotools-defined format - those are out of what is being curreently
If you see some other type of configuration data for dpkg-cross, please
As for the above two, for those I'm currently thinking of perl
configuration file (perl is a natural choise of configuration format
because dpkg-cross is written in perl), in form of function calls. For
define_var(name, value, scope, mode, package, arch);
undefine_var(name, mode, scope, mode, package, arch);
set_tool(tool, arch, mode, pathname)
So configuration file may be actually a perl file where allowed statements
are those described above, plus some construct to include other files.
To avoid 6-parameter define_var, a separate call may be used to set
'current default values' for later 4 args, or some form of hash arguments
may be used.