On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 07:23:14PM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > I also suspect that given DEB_BUILD_PROFILES=nocheck implies > DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck, the same should be true for nodoc?
Like DEB_BUILD_PROFILES=nocheck does *not* imply DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck (you must set the latter explicitly), DEB_BUILD_PROFILES=nodoc does *not* imply DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nodoc. In general, I think that this historic split into options and profiles is unfortunate. If we were to restart now, we'd likely remove nocheck, nodoc and maybe also nostrip from DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS and use DEB_BUILD_PROFILES exclusively. That's not where we are unfortunately. Arguably, the same responsibility we require for nocheck should be applied to nodoc. Given that the nodoc option has a much lower adoption, I am in favour of simply deprecating it. We should also remove the "nodocs" option from the archive while at it. Furthermore, I question the usefulness of nodoc. Since -doc packages are generally arch:all, most often you can skip them by doing an arch-only build. In the cases where documentation is stuffed into arch:any packages, the option modifies package contents. As such, you can no longer tell whether your modified package correctly satisfies its reverse dependencies (that may use parts of the documentation other than /usr/share/doc/<pkg>). As such the nodoc option/profile is generally considered "unsafe". Given that you cannot simply rebuild the world with nodoc active, I have yet to encounter a practical use of nodoc. It seems to be a futile exercise in increasing complexity at present. Whatever the outcome to the relevant questions is, consensus is not what we have now. Helmut
