[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#604397: Request for TC to rule on a course of action for supporting build-arch



Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:

> The Technical Committee has sufficient authority to address this
> question under any of §6.1.{1,2,4,5}.  If you prefer, we could also ask
> for a referral from the policy editors or the dpkg maintainers, to
> eliminate any question of supermajority requirements.

I'm happy to provide a referral from Policy.  I think resolving this in
the tech-ctte is a great idea.

> If this were to be put to a vote today, I would propose the following
> ballot options:

>  1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
>     'debian/rules build' by checking for the presence of the target using
>     'make -qn'.[1]

>  2) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' with a fallback
>     to 'debian/rules build' by checking whether the output of the build-arch
>     target matches that of a dummy target.[2]

>  3) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
>     'debian/rules build' if a Build-Options field is set in debian/control
>     of the source package specifying that this target is supported.[3]

>  4) Turn on direct use of 'debian/rules build-arch' on the autobuilders for
>     all packages in unstable and experimental immediately, with no fallback
>     if the target does not exist; requires a corresponding update to Policy
>     and mass updates to fix packages that fail to build as a result.

>  5) Further Discussion

Those look like a good set of solutions to vote on to me.

> My own vote would likely be: 1, 2, 3, 5, 4.  (I could be persuaded to
> rank 4 above FD if this were the only way to move forward; but that's
> indisputably the most disruptive to the archive, so I would hope we
> could reach agreement that some or all of the other options are better.)

So that people know, my vote would probably be something like:

    2, 4, 1, 3, 5

I'm worried that make -qn is going to be too fragile.  That method has
been tried before in Lintian checks IIRC and didn't work well.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>



Reply to: