On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 05:08:36PM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
> the Build Profile Spec (https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec)
> currently defines the following set of standard "no${lang}" build
> profiles to allow disabling specific language bindings / language
> support in packages when bootstrapping a new architecture:
>
> nogolang, nojava, noperl, nopython, noruby and nolua
>
> I'm thinking about submitting patches to add support for a
> "noguile" profile to some packages to make bootstrapping a bit
> easier. That can of course be done with a profile in the
> so-called "extension namespace", i.e. with a profile name of the
> form "pkg.${sourcepackage}.noguile", but the question is whether
> it wouldn't make more sense to have a standard "noguile" profile
> in the same style as for the other languages.
I don't think we^WI need noguile, because guile tends to be cross
buildable. Thus I'm not going to move a noguile profile forward and when
Manoj asked me whether he should add it to make-dfsg (the one package
where you'd really want noguile), I said "no".
But I'm not the only user of build profiles and that's great!
Not adding noguile to the profile list likely just was an oversight. I
don't think we use nolua yet. So why not add noguile there?
There is one very good reason for adding it: When using the extension
namespace, you want to use a "central" source package to avoid having
lots of different pkg.${differentsourcepackages}.noguile. So you'd ask
the guile maintainer and use his source package here if he agrees.
Unfortunately, guile source packages are versioned in the package name.
You'd be switching from pkg.guile-2.0.noguile to pkg.guile-2.2.noguile
and likely switch again. And that's inconvenient.
So if you want to maintain noguile profiles, please go ahead and use
that very obvious name. In a brief discussion with Josch and Guillem,
neither seemed to object either. Can you update the spec and add noguile
there?
Helmut
