Re: build profile proposal: nogir (second try)

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 06:30:02PM +, Alberto Garcia wrote: > - Are packages that ship gobject-introspection files supposed to have >in the relevant build dependencies (gir1.2-*-dev, > gobject-introspection ?), or is the build profile handling this > automatically? This is not

Re: build profile proposal: nogir (second try)

As Johannes mentioned earlier in this thread, the first piece of practical advice on nogir should be: if you don't know that you need to use it, then perhaps you shouldn't. It's primarily aimed at breaking cycles, and enabling buildability in lower-level packages during bootstrapping. (Having

Re: build profile proposal: nogir (second try)

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 10:00:35PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > Here is the draft text that I added to the GObject-Introspection > mini-policy in 1.78.1-11: Hi, thanks for the explanation. A couple of questions about this: - Are packages that ship gobject-introspection files supposed to have

Re: build profile proposal: nogir (second try)

Hi Simon, On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 03:24:25PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > > How annoying would it actually be to split this to a > > different source package? > > Really quite annoying. [...] You gave more than sufficient reason. I won't argue. > If porters are interested in making bootstrap

Re: build profile proposal: nogir (second try)

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 at 11:08:30 +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:38:09PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > > The only package where I'm sure that I intend to separate out the GIR > > XML in the short term is src:glib2.0 > > How annoying would it actually be to split this to a

Re: build profile proposal: nogir (second try)

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:38:09PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 23:15:03 +0100, Matthias Geiger wrote: > > Does this mean we should should split out the .gir XML files from existing > > source packages into a separate gir1.2-foo-dev (in the long run) ? > > That's a good

Re: build profile proposal: nogir (second try)

Hi, On 2024-01-18 00:38, Simon McVittie wrote: On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 23:15:03 +0100, Matthias Geiger wrote: Am 17.01.24 um 23:00 schrieb Simon McVittie: > Public GIR XML (Foo-1.gir) is normally in the -dev package alongside the > C headers, but recent versions of gobject-introspection define

Re: build profile proposal: nogir (second try)

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 23:15:03 +0100, Matthias Geiger wrote: > Am 17.01.24 um 23:00 schrieb Simon McVittie: > > Public GIR XML (Foo-1.gir) is normally in the -dev package alongside the > > C headers, but recent versions of gobject-introspection define a canonical > > virtual package name

Re: build profile proposal: nogir (second try)

Am 17.01.24 um 23:00 schrieb Simon McVittie: Last year, Helmut Grohne proposed a nogir build profile to help with cross-compiling the GLib ecosystem: . After some discussion on #1030223, I have a revised proposal, with the same name