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

Re: Proposal: Making Debian compiler agnostic

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 01:43:24PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> wrote:
> >> If a package fails to build with an alternate compiler (that is, it
> >> correctly *uses* the compiler, but the compiler reports a fatal error),
> >> is that considered a bug, and what severity does it have?
> >
> > I'd not consider a FTBFS with a non-critical compiler to be too high of
> > a severity, likely not RC. In fact, I'd likely only file a bug if the
> > issue is with the Debian packaging -- e.g. hardcoding CC or CXX in
> > d/rules or so, when the package builds fine without gcc otherwise.
> The usage of the term "must" and "shall" in the policy wording would
> have the effect of making any such issues RC since those would become
> policy violations.  Switching the the terms to "should" would probably
> fix that.
>     Hardcoded usage of CC or CXX (for example, CC=gcc) should be avoid and
>     documented if necessary.
>     Debian build tools _should_ respect the CC and CXX variables if provided. If
>     not, they _should_ default to /usr/bin/cc and /usr/bin/c++

Indeed. However, this is a policy on d/rules, so hard-coding CC would be
RC, not a FTBFS on a non-gcc compiler.

However, perhaps you're right anyway.

> Best wishes,
> Mike


 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>
: :'  : Proud Debian Developer
`. `'`  4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
 `-     http://people.debian.org/~paultag

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: