On 2024-05-24 01:55, Andrius Merkys wrote:
Hi,
On 2024-05-23 23:52, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
On 2024-05-22 16:36, Nilesh Patra wrote:
Hi Julian!
On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 01:48:17PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
But here I'd suggest doing the
opposite: checking for valid build options (and note: this is a check
for DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS, not for DEB_BUILD_PROFILES). There is a very
short list of standard build options: those listed in
dpkg-buildpackage(1) (parallel=n, nocheck, noopt, nostrip, terse,
hardening=..., reproducible=..., abi=..., future=..., qa=...,
optimize=..., sanitize=...) and
https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec: nodoc
I concur. Thanks also to Andrius for +1. If Pollo/Andrius would like
to work on
I don't really mind the improvements proposed, but I don't have time
to implement them.
If no one has, I would suggest merging the code I wrote, as I believe
it's better than the status quo :)
Since your MR performs a subset of the proposed general check for
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS, I think it can be merged right away and later
extended to cover all known DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. One suggestion would be
to use a more generic lintian tag (something like
'debian-rules-invalid-build-profile') so as we can extend it later on
instead of creating a new one and superseding your
'debian-rules-invalid-build-profile-nodocs'.
Sounds like a plan. I made the changed you proposed and also made sure
the tag will output the problematic BUILD_OPTION. That way, when/if
someone wants to make it more generic, it'll be possible to pass other
invalid BUILD_OPTION.
The tag outputted currently looks like:
foobar (source): debian-rules-invalid-build-option nodocs [debian/rules:2]
Cheers,
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ po...@debian.org / veronneau.org
⠈⠳⣄
