Bug#604397: Request for TC to rule on a course of action for supporting build-arch
* Bdale Garbee (bdale@gag.com) [110606 20:59]:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 02:15:37 -0700, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> > 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
>
> Steve and I discussed this on IRC for a while in advance of his posting
> the email here, and I'm supportive of the TC voting on this to help
> establish the plan for our next stable release.
>
> FWIW, if voting today I'd vote 12453.
Why 3 below 5?
Option 1 also implies forcing debian/rules to be a Makefile, which is
think is sensible.
My vote as of now would be something along 1254 (and unsure where to
place 3, between 2 and 5, or 5 and 4).
Andi
Reply to: