> I think to add one more statement that, when executed, will unset variable. Ok. So it will be possible to unsed everywhere and the line number/position of the unset statement will decide based on the sequencial parsing of the configuration file.
> What do you think of idea of making everything explicit (that means, no > implicit variable settings at all)? I would not be happy about this. Until bug 246061 dpkg-cross uses the default approach and suite most of Makefiles. Changing that would lead to a extensive configuration process not required today. It should be the default to set the common used variables to confront the default. > This will break compatability, but we may warn loudly pointing user to > NEWS.Debian if some important variable (such as CC) is not set. The advantage of using dpkg-buildpackage -a<arch> would be reduced to a subset of creating the *.changes and *.dsc files. That is not really helpful in my point of view. > I also thing that "base" variables (crossdir, crossprefix, etc) should > depend at least on mode component of mode/package/scope. Yes, I approve this and would like to see a change here. This would make the mode feature of dpkg-buildpackage -M<mode> more flexible and useful. > This is needed, for example, to make it possible to intruduce a mode for > uclibc builds and a mode for glibc builds. For me, it would be possible to switch between different compiler suites. -- Raphael Bossek -- +++ GMX DSL-Tarife 3 Monate gratis* +++ Nur bis 25.7.2004 +++ Bis 24.000 MB oder 300 Freistunden inkl. http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
