Quoting Ben Hutchings (2025-11-24 00:00:56) > On Sun, 2025-11-23 at 08:07 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > [...] > > However when adding additional pkg.llvm.noflang, pkg.llvm.nolld, ... > > build profiles for some more fine grained control (attached diff), as in > > > > Package: lld-21 > > Build-Profiles: <!pkg.llvm.noclang> + <!pkg.llvm.nolld> > > > > then all the packages with an ORed build profile are NOT built by > > default. I'm not expecting this. dpkg doesn't complain about the > > syntax of this field. > > > > Looking at > > https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec#The_Package-List_field > > > > the spec seems to be a little bit ambiguous about that field, not giving > > a spec, but just some examples, and no example for ORed build profiles, > > and not explaining what the examples are supposed to do. > > > > There's also nothing told about the precedence of the operators, (NOT > > (!), OR (+), AND (,)). > [...] > > For the Build-Profiles field, "the same restriction formula syntax from > the Build-Depends field is used", and I think that is adequately > documented. > > For the Package-List field I think the syntax is changed just to avoid > whitespace in the expression. Yes, that was the reasoning we used back then. There is also a good chance that build profiles will be part of Debian Policy soon. The latest version of the text (last message in the bug) is much better written than the BuildProfileSpec page in the Debian wiki and might thus be a better document to read to understand how it is supposed to work: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=757760 Thanks! cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature