Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting Jonathan Nieder (2014-08-25 20:35:34) >> Johannes Schauer wrote:
>>> 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". Thanks. I guess I'm happy either way on this one. ;-) [...] >> 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? I would like to move the "make check" invocation in packages I maintain from "debian/rules build" to an autopkgtest. But today, buildds don't run autopkgtests or use them as information about whether the build succeeded. So I can't. Oh well --- that's a subject for a separate bug. Thanks, Jonathan -- 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/20140825185332.gq20...@google.com
