Re: Guile language support in make
Russ Allbery wrote:
>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.
Thinking about the poor people trying to bootstrap things, I'm tempted
to suggest doing this as two separate source packages. Make is *so*
far down the bottom of the stack that adding a dependency on another
language could cause significant problems.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
Support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression: http://www.eff.org/cafe/
Reply to: