Better to run multiple configure/make cycles or use separate sources?

Hi List! I'm packaging a program which offers different options in using different compile options. My wish is to provide different binary-packages in the end. What should be done? Should I prepare the 'rules' to do different compilations with different 'configures' and separate the files

Re: Better to run multiple configure/make cycles or use separate sources?

On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 05:53:44PM +0100, Roman Müllenschläder wrote: Hi List! I'm packaging a program which offers different options in using different compile options. My wish is to provide different binary-packages in the end. What should be done? Should I prepare the 'rules' to do

Re: Better to run multiple configure/make cycles or use separate sources?

Am Montag, 19. Februar 2007 schrieb Justin Pryzby: On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 05:53:44PM +0100, Roman Müllenschläder wrote: Hi List! I'm packaging a program which offers different options in using different compile options. My wish is to provide different binary-packages in the end.

Re: Better to run multiple configure/make cycles or use separate sources?

On (19/02/07 19:54), Roman Müllenschläder wrote: Let's ask different: I'm able to do differnet compiles and install (using 'make install') the whole program (including pos, themes, docs, binaries, etc.) into subdirs beneath debian .. debian/compiled-version1 debian/compiled-version2

Re: Better to run multiple configure/make cycles or use separate sources?

Another thing to realize is that the number of binary .debs generated from a source package is dictated by the contents of debian/control. Each Package: stanza indicates another binary .deb to be generated by the package. (Sorry if that's already been mentioned. I didn't see it, and couldn't