Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?
On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 11:43:23PM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> Perhaps you could convert this into a pkg.e2fsprogs.nofuse build profile?
> <https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec>
> This would look something like the attached (untested!) patches.
Thanks, I'll give this a try. From the BuildProfile web page and
looking at the package versions, support for it appears to be in
Jessie, or at least "preliminary support" is present. Is that
correct? Is there any gotchas I should be aware of when backporting
to Jessie?
It looks like one thing which my scheme supports which build profiles
does not is that when backporting to Jessie, I can just check out the
tree from git, and then run:
./debian/rules debian-files
dpkg-buildpackage
... and it will autodetect that the system doesn't support *-dbgsym
packages, and create e2fsprogs-dbg, e2fslibs-dbg, et.al packages for
Jessie instead.
Since the autodetection isn't there, I would have to just manually
build with some kind of pkg.e2fsprogs.old-dbg build profile, or some
such, instead. I guess it's about the same level of inconvenience of
needing to run ./debian/rules in order to generate the control file
from control.in.
My "./debian-rules debian-files" scheme used to do a lot more,
including rewriting several other files in debian/ using m4, back when
we had just migrated libuuid and libblkid from e2fsprogs to
util-linux, and I wanted to support backports to stable, old-stable,
and Ubuntu LTS. I did like the fact that it could detect which build
option (now, "build profile") to use automatically, so the folks
building backports for various Debian derivitives didn't need to do
anything special. Has there been any thought about having the build
profiles framework support for having the rules file autoselect a
build profile based on the build environment?
Cheers,
- Ted
Reply to: