On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Bastien, > > Bastien ROUCARIÈS wrote: > >> I think the following patch is needed even if profiles are not fully >> specified. >> Maybe an example about nodoc and help2man will also help. The nocheck should >> check both BUILD_OPTIONS and BUILD_PROFILES. It will help when implementing >> as >> policy profiles >> >> diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst >> index f706a13..d3d868c 100644 >> --- a/policy/ch-source.rst >> +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst >> @@ -465,7 +465,8 @@ The meaning of the following tags has been standardized: >> >> ``nocheck`` >> This tag says to not run any build-time test suite provided by the >> - package. >> + package. This tag could be also specified using >> + ``DEB_BUILD_PROFILES`` variable with nocheck flag >> >> ``nodoc`` >> This tag says to skip any build steps that only generate package >> @@ -531,7 +532,7 @@ order to make it work for your package. >> >> build: >> # ... >> - ifeq (,$(filter nocheck,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS))) >> + ifeq (,$(filter nocheck,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS $DEB_BUILD_PROFILES))) >> # Code to run the package test suite. >> endif > > I am all for starting small in documenting build profiles (perhaps by > documenting DEB_BUILD_PROFILES before the Build-Depends syntax) but it > is possible to go too small. This patch doesn't give context for what > DEB_BUILD_PROFILES means and it makes policy harder to understand. > > In other words, if a patch > - described what a build profile is > - explained the DEB_BUILD_PROFILES environment variable > - listed which values in that variable are required to be supported > > then that would already be enough for me to second it. This patch > doesn't do that. > > Do you mind if I merge this with bug#757760?
Feel free to do > > Thanks, > Jonathan
