Re: build profile proposal: nogir (second try)

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 06:30:02PM +, Alberto Garcia wrote: > - Are packages that ship gobject-introspection files supposed to have >in the relevant build dependencies (gir1.2-*-dev, > gobject-introspection ?), or is the build profile handling this > automatically? This is not automati

Re: build profile proposal: nogir (second try)

As Johannes mentioned earlier in this thread, the first piece of practical advice on nogir should be: if you don't know that you need to use it, then perhaps you shouldn't. It's primarily aimed at breaking cycles, and enabling buildability in lower-level packages during bootstrapping. (Having said

Re: build profile proposal: nogir (second try)

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 10:00:35PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > Here is the draft text that I added to the GObject-Introspection > mini-policy in 1.78.1-11: Hi, thanks for the explanation. A couple of questions about this: - Are packages that ship gobject-introspection files supposed to have

Re: build profile proposal: nogir (second try)

Hi Simon, On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 03:24:25PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > > How annoying would it actually be to split this to a > > different source package? > > Really quite annoying. [...] You gave more than sufficient reason. I won't argue. > If porters are interested in making bootstrap

Re: build profile proposal: nogir (second try)

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 at 11:08:30 +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:38:09PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > > The only package where I'm sure that I intend to separate out the GIR > > XML in the short term is src:glib2.0 > > How annoying would it actually be to split this to a

Re: build profile proposal: nogir (second try)

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:38:09PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 23:15:03 +0100, Matthias Geiger wrote: > > Does this mean we should should split out the .gir XML files from existing > > source packages into a separate gir1.2-foo-dev (in the long run) ? > > That's a good qu

Re: build profile proposal: nogir (second try)

Hi, On 2024-01-18 00:38, Simon McVittie wrote: On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 23:15:03 +0100, Matthias Geiger wrote: Am 17.01.24 um 23:00 schrieb Simon McVittie: > Public GIR XML (Foo-1.gir) is normally in the -dev package alongside the > C headers, but recent versions of gobject-introspection define a

Re: build profile proposal: nogir (second try)

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 23:15:03 +0100, Matthias Geiger wrote: > Am 17.01.24 um 23:00 schrieb Simon McVittie: > > Public GIR XML (Foo-1.gir) is normally in the -dev package alongside the > > C headers, but recent versions of gobject-introspection define a canonical > > virtual package name gir1.2-fo

Re: build profile proposal: nogir (second try)

Am 17.01.24 um 23:00 schrieb Simon McVittie: Last year, Helmut Grohne proposed a nogir build profile to help with cross-compiling the GLib ecosystem: . After some discussion on #1030223, I have a revised proposal, with the same name but

build profile proposal: nogir (second try)

Last year, Helmut Grohne proposed a nogir build profile to help with cross-compiling the GLib ecosystem: . After some discussion on #1030223, I have a revised proposal, with the same name but slightly different rules: profile name:

Re: build profile proposal: nogir

Hi Simon, On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 04:17:10PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > Unfortunately, I don't think this profile as stated will be practically > useful, so I object to its addition on behalf of the GNOME team. I would > support its addition if it was practically useful, but in the current > s

Re: build profile proposal: nogir

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 at 13:22:57 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > when adding new general build profiles, we're supposed to consult with > debian-devel. Thus I propose the "nogir" profile. This profile is > supposed to skip building "gir*" packages containing typelib files. Unfortunately, I don't thin

build profile proposal: nogir

Hi, when adding new general build profiles, we're supposed to consult with debian-devel. Thus I propose the "nogir" profile. This profile is supposed to skip building "gir*" packages containing typelib files. Why? gobject-introspection is one of the few and high popcon components that poses resi