Re: Guile language support in make
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@ieee.org> writes:
> Building two binary packages from a single source seems hackish,
> since make and make-guile would require ./configure to be run again,
> and each target of the ./debin/rules might need cleanup/restart. Not
> unsolvable, but messy, and I do not have the motivation to do
> that. Patches welcome, of course.
I do this with libpam-krb5 to build against both MIT Kerberos and Heimdal,
and it's very straightforward with a package that supports out of tree
builds, like I presume make does. (Nearly all GNU software does.)
debhelper has built-in support for doing this; see libpam-krb5's
debian/rules file to get a feeling for how it would work.
I think building two separate binaries makes more sense than adding Guile
support by default for all the reasons you stated. We do similar things
with Emacs, which has a -nox version to avoid pulling in tons of X
libraries, and I think it's more important for make.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: