On Sun, 2014-05-11 at 03:28 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > 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. Why separate source packages and not multi-stage bootstrap where make-guile is excluded from stage1? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Sturgeon's Law: Ninety percent of everything is crap.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part