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

Re: Consistent handling of the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS

Neil Williams wrote:
> I propose to file bugs against packages that use inconsistent
> DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS or which do not support DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS that would
> actually benefit Emdebian.
> As with the other mass bug filing from this set, I will tag the reports
> 'crossbuilt' and file as wishlist. However, I would like feedback on
> whether DEB_BUILD_OPTION support should be handled in Policy so that
> packages *must* support the use of all relevant options in a consistent
> manner. Maybe lintian could also include a check along the lines of:
> package-includes-docs-without-supporting-nodocs
> and
> package-runs-make-check-without-supporting-nocheck
> If this seems like a good idea to others, I'll file the relevant
> wishlist bugs against lintian and Policy.

I wonder if I should spend some time on fleshing out an idea some of us
were discussing at DebConf[1], to add a source control file field saying
what DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS a given package supports. Part of the idea was
just to make it easy to tell that a given build option could be used,
without needing to read the source or see if a build worked. Another
part of the idea was that if a package indicated it supported a given
option, even if the option was not mandatory, it would be a bug if it
wasn't supported correctly. The third part of the idea was that it could
be useful to let packagers define more special purpose options (such as
building without a specific library). This was complicated by wanting to
let packages indicate that while they support option A and option B,
building with both combined isn't supported (and so isn't a bug if it
fails) or indicate that a specific combination of options is supported.

see shy jo

[1] Mostly on the day trip and around Yuri.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: