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

Re: Consistent handling of the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS



On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:25:54 -0500
Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> wrote:

> 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.

> 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.

>From my perspective, I want to use DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS globally - setting
the same options for all cross-builds to achieve the same effects in
all packages (hence the need for consistency rather than granularity).

i.e. all Emdebian builds would use options A,B,C and all Debian builds
would use none.

Emdebian needs autobuilding of packages and package-specific build
options would not appear to help as the Emdebian build would have to
store those settings somewhere. Overlap and misunderstandings would
appear to complicate things.

-- 

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

Attachment: pgpuKqzL5ndWm.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: