[Build-common-hackers] rewrite plans
Wed, 09 Jun 2004 21:46:35 -0400
On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 19:16, Andres Salomon wrote:
> Ok, since I've gotten a few emails and such about the rewrite I'm
> currently working on, I figured it would be good to get a discussion
> going. So, to start off, here are my planned features:
> * Consistent hook naming. =20
Would be nice, yeah.
> * Verbosity setting=20
Both of the above seem doable without a rewrite though. Just have the
old hook names depend on the new ones. Probably put them in a separate
-compat.mk file which is included by default for cleanliness.
> * Support for multiple build directories. This would create directories
> in the pre-prepare hook; for example, pre-prepape/apache2-mpm-prefork
> would create debian/build/apache2-mpm-prefork. This is one way of doing
> multi-builds; it is good for smaller packages.
Don't we already support this with DEB_BUILDDIRS or something?
> * Support for -source packages.=20
Sounds doable without a rewrite. We already recognize -debug and -udeb.
> * Support for -udeb packages. Same as -source packages; CDBS should
> automatically handle debhelper stuff for udebs.
We already have this, although as I understand it isn't great. I wrote
it before debhelper had udeb stuff though.
> * Generation of control files. A control.cdbs might have CDBS variables
> for SONAMEs, so that the line "Package: libfoo$(CDBS_SONAME)" would be
> changed to "Package: libfoo4" (if SONAME=3D=3D4) in the generated control
> file. This doesn't have to be for just file contents; it can also be
> for files themselves. For example, libfooCDBS_SONAME.install.cdbs can
> be turned into libfoo4.install. This sort of thing is useful for
> packages like gstreamer, and kernel packages.
Yes...this is very tricky.
> * Automatic build-dep handling. If control files are being generated,
> there's no reason why we can't add "cdbs (>=3D 4.0.0), debhelper (>=3D 4.=
> to a Build-dep line. There are lots of other possibilities for handling
> things more cleanly than we currently do, as well.
I'm not sure about automatically modifying the Build-Depends line. We
could probably grep for things that seem likely and warn if they're not
present. But I wouldn't add them automatically, since they could just
be part of another dependency, and calling out to apt or whatever sounds
pretty evil :)
> * And, of course, all the current CDBS features we've come to enjoy; 4
> line debian/rules, auto-patching, the ability to easily override and
> extend default behavior.
> I had started implementing this in gmake; however, as jbailey pointed
> out, there's no reason why this can't be done in shell. I'm even
> inclined to do it in perl, but I'll have to play w/ it a bit. I don't
> have anything committed to my arch repository yet, as the code isn't in
> a usable state yet.
One of my original goals was to have the cdbs core be integrated into
dpkg, so bits and pieces (e.g. variables) could be used by all
packages. I think in order to make that useful to the current package
set, cdbs should stay in gmake.
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----