[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Consistent handling of the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS



On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:42:03 +0100
Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de> wrote:

> 
> > nocheck | notest should also be supported whether or not the package is
> > actually being cross-built. emdebuild currently passes 'nocheck' as
> > part of the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS for all Emdebian builds.
> 
> Imho this should be either nocheck or notest, 

Agreed - I'm just not sure which because both are in use.

> > As far as nodocs is concerned, it should be straightforward - no
> > package documentation either in the arch dependent binaries or the
> > -doc, -data or -common packages.
> 
> It would probably make things more easy if dh_install{docs,examples,man}
>  would check for that, similar to dh_strip checking for nostrip.

Except that many packages install docs without using dh_installfoo and
these need to be covered too. If dh_installfoo was DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
-nodocs aware, that would help the other packages though.

Ideally, all debhelper packages would stop using manual install rules
and just use debhelper.

> > package-includes-docs-without-supporting-nodocs
> > and
> > package-runs-make-check-without-supporting-nocheck
> 
> Not sure how lintian should check for this, nodocs could be handled in a
> completely different file which is included/called/... somehow from
> debian/rules.

If debian/rules contains a manual install rule to /usr/share/doc or
creates such a directory manually, then -nodocs should be supported
(i.e. exist in debian/rules).

Similarly with -nocheck, if debian/rules includes a $(MAKE) check or
similar construct, that should be wrapped in a -nocheck conditional.
lintian should be able to spot that - Russ?

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgppuvUqpBNfx.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: