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

Re: Buildd & binary-indep

Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> writes:

> From the whole discussion, relying on Standards-Version was not well
> accepted so the only sane way of doing it (and parsing make's output is
> not sane enough for me, even if debhelper does it) is to have the
> package explicitly record that it provides the required support in a new
> control field, something like "Build-Features".

And I think there was general support for doing this for
build-arch/build-indep support.  But every time it comes up...

> The not-so-evident part is that I want the syntax of this field to be
> sufficiently extensible so that we can encode more information like
> support of hardening build flags and similar stuff that we might want to
> know to adjust the behaviour at build time.

...it gets derailed by this feature request for Build-Features, which a
lot of people are much more dubious about (myself, for example: I think
hardening flags should be handled similarly to parallel build flags, not
via Build-Features).  So I think solving this problem via the
Build-Features route is going to keep struggling as long as that's always
closely linked to using Build-Features to change compiler flags.

IMO, Build-Features should declare interfaces and capabilities that the
source package supports, not a desire for the build system to change other
things about the build environment.  I think we have a good way forward
for handling hardening flags now with your proposal to externalize
acquiring build flags from another program, which debian/rules can then
invoke with appropriate options depending on what sorts of flags the
source package wants.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: