Re: Bug#489771: New Build-Options field and build-arch option, please review
- To: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>
- Cc: Russ Allbery <email@example.com>, Joey Hess <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Felipe Sateler <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Bill Allombert <email@example.com>, Kees Cook <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Bug#489771: New Build-Options field and build-arch option, please review
- From: Raphael Hertzog <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:46:05 +0200
- Message-id: <20080911064605.GY7104@ouaza.com>
- Mail-followup-to: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>, Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Joey Hess <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Felipe Sateler <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Bill Allombert <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Kees Cook <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20080910174708.GU3969@yellowpig>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20080710220233.GA27990@ouaza.com> <email@example.com> <20080711071041.GG17010@ouaza.com> <20080711110720.GA10851@kodama.kitenet.net> <20080713091805.GA19192@ouaza.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20080714194702.GI5222@ouaza.com> <email@example.com> <20080910174708.GU3969@yellowpig>
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > People have noticed that and already requested that we can call arbitrary
> > > targets of debian/rules with all the proper initialization done precisely
> > > for test purpose during packaging work (see #477916).
> > I must say, I really do not like this direction. debhelper and cdbs and
> > similar sytsems are the places to provide this help where people want to
> > use it, in my opinion. We have a lot of past experience with that and we
> > have the compatibility level to handle smoothing transitions. (And to
> > provide a way for people to never transition, I admit, and I see where
> > that's the problem that you're solving, but I prefer that problem to the
> > problems introduced by the instability of having the package build
> > infrastructure change the input to the builds without coordination with
> > the package.)
> I like to say I concurr with Russ. There are some much difference
> between packages that distributions wide default does not make sense.
> Such change would rather lead me to hardcode values of
> DEBIAN_BUILD_OPTIONS in debian/rules if they are used blidly.
But more and more people want to be able to change distribution wide
default: Emdebian wants to enable "nodocs" and "nocheck" by default, other
want to be able to enable hardening options by default and I agree with
them that official support for such a facility is desirable.
See also #498355 and #498380 for such requests from Emdebian.
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :