Re: 1 source, 2 binaries, 2 CFLAGS and cdbs

["Eddy Petrişor" <eddy.petrisor@gmail.com>]

On 6/25/06, Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk> wrote:
> Eddy Petrişor wrote:
> >> ? I didn't say to do that. Patching the Makefiles used by autotools
> >> before cdbs runs was my point.
> >
> > Err, yes, my bad, indeed, you did not say that.
>
> OK, I see the problem. I've used "autotools" where I really meant
> "automake" - i.e. the normal make process that all binary packages need
> to be built from the upstream source tarball. ./configure, make, make
> install. That was my bad - I'm upstream as well as maintainer for all my

> >> autotools are run (once) via the normal cdbs processes as before, but
> >
> > Err, didn't you say that you were not advocating running autotools
> > from debian/rules? Or am I missing something?
>
> Yes, but it wasn't really what I meant. Sorry.
> :-(

No problem :-)

> > As I said, I doubt any sane upstream would incorporate rules to build
> > their software configured differently just to please Debian. I, for
> > one, would not welcome our new autotools-fiddling-for-debian changes
> > :-) .
>
> It depends, I try to keep in touch with a Fedora maintainer for my own
> packages and his experiences help me create an upstream tarball that
> suits both Debian and Fedora - in the hope that it will also be easier
> to use on other systems. In my upstream work, I'm not aware of any
> objections to making the released code easier to build on a wider range
> of systems. All these conditional build settings can be made into
> ./configure options and then it's easy to request cdbs to use or not use
> specific options. There's no need for this change to force everyone else
> to build 2 binaries, just adding support for those who do need 2. This
> example could be made "--enable-libfoo386" with a default to no.

that makes sense

> If this is expressed as an architectural thing rather than Debian-only,
> upstream may well be willing to at least help out. Asking for
> "--enable-libfoo-deb" is not the idea. Upstream will (and should) tend
> to see Debian-only problems as "not our fault" but - to me at least -
> the original question was an architectural issue that could apply to
> other distributions. That can be a key factor in how the request is
> phrased to upstream.

Indeed. That is in a different ballpark.

For some reason I imediately thought of thinks like
--enable-supplemental-full-option-build-after-the-custom-build .

--
Regards,
EddyP
=============================================
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein