Hi, Quoting Jonathan Nieder (2014-08-25 20:35:34) > > When bootstrapping, a common approach is to do a build without > > documentation to be able to drop the build dependencies on documentation > > building tools. This is why the build profile name "nodoc" exists which, if > > enabled, allows builds without documentation [3]. > > Could we just point people to the build profile and encourage using > that instead of DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS for nodoc builds?
yes, that would be possible. Introducing "nodoc" as a valid DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS is just a suggestion because it is unofficially used and also a valid DEB_BUILD_PROFILES value. There is no hard requirement for this, I guess it would just be "nice". On the other hand, DEB_BUILD_PROFILES might replace DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS like "nocheck" in the future (maybe jessie+2?) because if one wants to build without checks, then surely one does not want to install the build dependencies for them either. > > It would make sense to allow this value in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS as well as the > > build profile "nocheck" was also borrowed from DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. > > For comparison, I don't understand why "nocheck" would be a build > profile. It doesn't change the produced binary packages, so build > profiles don't seem like a good fit at first glance. > > Is the problem that 'nocheck' changes the build-time dependencies? Yes, that's why it needs to be a build profile. > Is it possible for a package to specify pre-upload checks that should run on > autobuilders using autopkgtest, which would avoid having to have an > DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS based ifdef for that? I'm not sure what you mean here. What exactly do you want to check in an autopkgtest? cheers, josch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140825184401.3685.78929@hoothoot
