Re: Request for TC to rule on a course of action for supporting build-arch
(Sorry to just join this conversation; I was on holiday in Wales,
which was excellent.)
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: Request for TC to rule on a course of action for supporting build-arch"):
> I was going to suggest that. The way I prepared the corresponding patch
> (the one you called "auto-detection") already does that in fact. So the few
> packages were the auto-detection does not work would add Build-Features
> in the mean time and the make -qn call will be entirely skipped.
This is a good suggestion.
Personally I don't see why Build-Options isn't sufficient, as a
temporary solution, once we realise that only the packages for which
we actually care that the buildds use build-arch need to declare the
Build-Option.
Ie something like the following plan:
wheezy: everyone SHOULD implement build-arch
If package takes a long time to build, SHOULD advertise
in Build-Options; otherwise MAY
wheezy+1: MUST implement build-arch; MAY advertise in Build-Options
Personally I think the make -qn test is a horrible hack and I'd prefer
any solution which avoided it. But if we must have it, then Roger's
suggestion to do it only if not advertised in Build-Options is
sensible.
NB that although for this particular case, Build-Options seems
overkill (since you can usually very easily provide the feature) I
think it's a useful precedent for other possible features.
Ian.
Reply to: