Russ Allbery wrote: >Manoj Srivastava <[email protected]> writes: > >> Building two binary packages from a single source seems hackish, >> since make and make-guile would require ./configure to be run again, >> and each target of the ./debin/rules might need cleanup/restart. Not >> unsolvable, but messy, and I do not have the motivation to do >> that. Patches welcome, of course. > >I do this with libpam-krb5 to build against both MIT Kerberos and Heimdal, >and it's very straightforward with a package that supports out of tree >builds, like I presume make does. (Nearly all GNU software does.) >debhelper has built-in support for doing this; see libpam-krb5's >debian/rules file to get a feeling for how it would work. > >I think building two separate binaries makes more sense than adding Guile >support by default for all the reasons you stated. We do similar things >with Emacs, which has a -nox version to avoid pulling in tons of X >libraries, and I think it's more important for make.
Thinking about the poor people trying to bootstrap things, I'm tempted to suggest doing this as two separate source packages. Make is *so* far down the bottom of the stack that adding a dependency on another language could cause significant problems. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [email protected] Support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
