[Build-common-hackers] Proposals for multi-build

[Colin Walters]

On Sun, 2003-07-27 at 17:01, Jeff Bailey wrote:

> It shouldn't, because we still go through all the steps for building the
> packages that we do now.  As long as the package DESTDIR'd (or whatever
> equivalent) so that the various install phases don't overwrite one
> another, they should be fine.

Ok, I agree.

> If packages can't do that, I guess they could post-install-hook to mv
> the install directory out of the way.  I think that's only in the
> ugliest of cases, though.

This'll probably happen though :/  There are a lot of packages with
sucky build systems...

> > Ok...that could work.  BTW, we don't need to do the $(call ...) stuff. 
> > It should work to just put this inside the variable, and let recursive
> > variable referencing do the work.
> 
> I think I'd have to see an example to know what you meant.

Actually on a bit of further investigation if we wanted to avoid $(call
..) we would have to use $(eval), which we should avoid for now because
the woody make doesn't have it.  So your way is probably best.

> A post-install hook of some sort should solve this problem, where they
> just force a make clean to be run.  But that does mean those targets
> won't have a sane 'build' target.  I don't think it's possible for them
> to, though.

Their build target will also have to install then, right?

> > I'm cool with trying it, definitely.  If it really doesn't work we can
> > back it out, and we'll have learned something from it anyways.
> 
> Excellent.  I might need you to run one of your pbuilder-the-world type
> of runs to test to make really sure before we upload it.

Sure :)