Neil Williams wrote: > I propose to file bugs against packages that use inconsistent > DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS or which do not support DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS that would > actually benefit Emdebian. > > As with the other mass bug filing from this set, I will tag the reports > 'crossbuilt' and file as wishlist. However, I would like feedback on > whether DEB_BUILD_OPTION support should be handled in Policy so that > packages *must* support the use of all relevant options in a consistent > manner. Maybe lintian could also include a check along the lines of: > package-includes-docs-without-supporting-nodocs > and > package-runs-make-check-without-supporting-nocheck > > If this seems like a good idea to others, I'll file the relevant > wishlist bugs against lintian and Policy.
I wonder if I should spend some time on fleshing out an idea some of us were discussing at DebConf[1], to add a source control file field saying what DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS a given package supports. Part of the idea was just to make it easy to tell that a given build option could be used, without needing to read the source or see if a build worked. Another part of the idea was that if a package indicated it supported a given option, even if the option was not mandatory, it would be a bug if it wasn't supported correctly. The third part of the idea was that it could be useful to let packagers define more special purpose options (such as building without a specific library). This was complicated by wanting to let packages indicate that while they support option A and option B, building with both combined isn't supported (and so isn't a bug if it fails) or indicate that a specific combination of options is supported. -- see shy jo [1] Mostly on the day trip and around Yuri.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
