Bug#759186: debian-policy: please consider adding "nodoc" as a possible value for DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS to policy
Hi,
Quoting Jonathan Nieder (2014-08-25 20:35:34)
> > When bootstrapping, a common approach is to do a build without
> > documentation to be able to drop the build dependencies on documentation
> > building tools. This is why the build profile name "nodoc" exists which, if
> > enabled, allows builds without documentation [3].
>
> Could we just point people to the build profile and encourage using
> that instead of DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS for nodoc builds?
yes, that would be possible. Introducing "nodoc" as a valid DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
is just a suggestion because it is unofficially used and also a valid
DEB_BUILD_PROFILES value. There is no hard requirement for this, I guess it
would just be "nice".
On the other hand, DEB_BUILD_PROFILES might replace DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS like
"nocheck" in the future (maybe jessie+2?) because if one wants to build without
checks, then surely one does not want to install the build dependencies for
them either.
> > It would make sense to allow this value in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS as well as the
> > build profile "nocheck" was also borrowed from DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS.
>
> For comparison, I don't understand why "nocheck" would be a build
> profile. It doesn't change the produced binary packages, so build
> profiles don't seem like a good fit at first glance.
>
> Is the problem that 'nocheck' changes the build-time dependencies?
Yes, that's why it needs to be a build profile.
> Is it possible for a package to specify pre-upload checks that should run on
> autobuilders using autopkgtest, which would avoid having to have an
> DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS based ifdef for that?
I'm not sure what you mean here. What exactly do you want to check in an
autopkgtest?
cheers, josch
Reply to: