[Build-common-hackers] Bug#573350: Bug#573350: Bug#573350: cdbs: autotools-vars.mk shouldn't include makefile.mk

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Hi Emilio,

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:27:03PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>On 10/03/10 23:17, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 10/03/10 23:10, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> On 10/03/10 20:43, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>>> I am curious both how you implemented your class (maybe you took 
>>>> care of some parts that I missed out?)
>>>
>>> Yes. Your class doesn't build for several python versions, doesn't 
>>> take care of -dbg packages, and doesn't integrate with 
>>> pysupport/pycentral.
>>
>> Oh actually it integrates with pysupport/pycentral, but it looks like 
>> the other points still hold.
>
>Meh, I wasn't looking at git but at my installed version. I see it 
>supports building for different python versions too :)

-dbg packages are not handled specially , but might "just work"(tm).

The othe points certainly are handled.  That's the reason this class 
have been outside of mainline cdbs for so long: I extended makefile.mk 
and autotools.mk to support multiflavored builds, and disagreed with the 
messy way python-distutils.mk was hacked to support the "new" Python 
policy so forked that one too - making python-autotools.mk only a tiny 
trigger on top of it all.  ...but then I didn't get around to merge it 
back, and time passed by.

My python-distutils was used in the moin package for several years, and 
the python-distutils have been in active use by the sugar packages since 
they were initially released - building for multiple Python versions 
although not usable since dependent libraries was only built for the 
default Python :-(.


Your implementation is quite exciting to look at.  Parts of it I don't 
like - e.g. setting per-rule variables I feel should be avoided.  But 
some parts are interesting - like bug#500118 which I did not know about.  
Obvious when you think about it, I just didn't until now :-P


>What about -dbg builds?

I have actually never tested -dbg packages with CDBS yet.  I believe I 
understand the general principle of such packages but have not yet had 
any use for them myself (I do not understand strace or debugging running 
C code).

so you can no doubt educate me on that part.



So how do we move from here?


First off: Would you like to join the CDBS team?


I feel that my implementation is the best one to work from - but 
obviously I am biased, so do tell me if you disagree!

I will certainly cherry-pick (the idea from) your handling bug#500118 
and will (later, I have my hands full at the moment) read it closer to 
try reveal other neat details too.  Would be very helpful if you could 
point out to me what you think are candidates for cherry-picking.

I would appreciate help understanding and fixing any bugs in handling 
-dbg packages.  I believe some support is in cdbs already but have no 
idea what works and what don't.

Another thing I haven't gotten around to play with is parallelised 
builds.  In case you want a challenge ;-)


Regards,

  - Jonas

-- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/build-common-hackers/attachments/20100311/69d7767f/attachment.pgp>