Steve McIntyre writes ("Re: Guile language support in make"): > Russ Allbery wrote: > >I think building two separate binaries makes more sense than adding Guile > >support by default for all the reasons you stated. We do similar things > >with Emacs, which has a -nox version to avoid pulling in tons of X > >libraries, and I think it's more important for make. > > Thinking about the poor people trying to bootstrap things, I'm tempted > to suggest doing this as two separate source packages. Make is *so* > far down the bottom of the stack that adding a dependency on another > language could cause significant problems.
This is what build profiles are for. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21363.24197.898835.56...@chiark.greenend.org.uk