Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 02:36:37PM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote:
build-debug: BUILD_DEBUG=y
Is that a GNU make feature that you can set vars at the place where a
dependency is expected?
At least it works with GNU make, and it's documented in the node
On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 10:49:44AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 02:36:37PM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote:
build-debug: BUILD_DEBUG=y
Is that a GNU make feature that you can set vars at the place where a
dependency is expected?
Should these packages built with BUILD_DEBUG turned on have a
different name (i.e. libgtk1.2-dbg) than the standard packages? Is
there an easy way to do this other than replicating control file
entries?
Hmm... I'd say they shouldn't. They have the same functionality as the
non-debug
However, have you looked at the cost of this proposal? This entails
that one massage upstream Makefiles (or several Makefiles) to take
not of an environment variable to add debugging flags. That is more
difficult than a static, one time edit of the Makefiles involved to
add the -g and the
Hi,
Umm, since the intent is not to make the old way of doing
things incorrect, we can do one of two things. Here are psuedo
patches that detail the approaches. (I personally prefer the second
approach).
First, the minimal change::
Here's a question:
Should these packages built with BUILD_DEBUG turned on have a different
name (i.e. libgtk1.2-dbg) than the standard packages? Is there an
easy way to do this other than replicating control file entries?
--
Brought to you by the letters G and Z and the number 18.
What's
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 09:11:29AM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
Here's a question:
Should these packages built with BUILD_DEBUG turned on have a different
name (i.e. libgtk1.2-dbg) than the standard packages? Is there an
easy way to do this other than replicating control file entries?
Too
Hi,
Ben == Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben I like this one, but I don't think that build-debug target
Ben should be used as an alternative since it gives two ways of
Ben doing this and the use will still need to look at the rules file
This happens not to be the case. You can
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 09:55:11AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The second way: we don't just offer an alternative, we
deprecate the old method, but let it be still legal.
==
CC = gcc
- CFLAGS =
This one looks good, and is exactly what I had in mind. Thanks :)
Ben
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 11:41:17AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The second way: we don't just offer an alternative, we
deprecate the old method, but let it be still legal.
Hi,
Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Anthony Isn't strip still necessary/desirable?
I guess. Well, here is the version with your suggestions
incorporated.
The minimal change:
==
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 01:39:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
+ BUILD_OPTIONS, which, if set to `debug', would cause
What about BUILD_OPTIONS, which, if it contains `debug', would cause
This let's you string options like:
BUILD_OPTIONS=debug static
In the near future :)
Ben
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 01:39:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
+ build-debug: BUILD_OPTIONS=debug
I suggest
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
for avoiding namespace collision and more importantly for consistency with
the dpkg-architecture handling.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.'
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 10:32:54PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 01:39:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
+ build-debug: BUILD_OPTIONS=debug
I suggest
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
for avoiding namespace collision and more importantly for consistency with
the
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 04:18:55PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
Looks like this proposal may be turning into a complete subsection on
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS :)
Yeah, why not.
Makes sense to do this. Since Manoj says the last diff was his last attempt at
it, I'll rewrite it to include this and Cc
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 06:25:52PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
The package can by default build without -g if it also provides a mechanism
to easily be rebuilt with debugging information. This can be done by providing
a build-debug make target, or allowing the user to specify BUILD_DEBUG=yes
in
The package can by default build without -g if it also provides a mechanism
to easily be rebuilt with debugging information. This can be done by providing
a build-debug make target, or allowing the user to specify BUILD_DEBUG=yes
in the environment while compiling that package.
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 11:51:46AM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote:
And since the build targets of contain a lot
of commands, a second build-debug target often will mean to double
most of these commands.
No. Just set up the regular build target so that it honours the setting
of BUILD_DEBUG and add
build-debug: BUILD_DEBUG=y
Is that a GNU make feature that you can set vars at the place where a
dependency is expected?
Roman
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 02:55:18PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 11:51:46AM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote:
And since the build targets of contain a lot
of commands, a second build-debug target often will mean to double
most of these commands.
No. Just set up
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 07:27:35AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
I think sticking with an env will make it much easier for some one to just
Of course. I just wanted to point out that it is possible to avoid code
duplication even in a Makefile :-)
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 02:36:37PM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote:
build-debug: BUILD_DEBUG=y
Is that a GNU make feature that you can set vars at the place where a
dependency is expected?
At least it works with GNU make, and it's documented in the node
Target-specific Variable Values of the
Hi,
Ben == Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. Just set up the regular build target so that it honours the setting
of BUILD_DEBUG and add this to debian/rules:
build-debug: BUILD_DEBUG=y
build-debug: build
You can use other make variables of course.
Ben I think sticking
Hi,
Ben == Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben As a buildd admin, I want to congratulate the original policy on
Ben all the wasted cpu cycles it has cost my system by forcing
Ben packages to compile with -g even though those same binaries will
Ben be stripped later of this costly
Hi,
Roman == Roman Hodek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
build-debug: BUILD_DEBUG=y
Roman Is that a GNU make feature that you can set vars at the place where a
Roman dependency is expected?
Yes.
File: make.info, Node: Target-specific, Next: Pattern-specific, Prev: Enviro\
nment, Up:
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think sticking with an env will make it much easier for some one to just
use dpkg-buildpackage (without modification) and call it like:
BUILD_DEBUG=y dpkg-buildpackage -B
Just a minor nit. That should be:
BUILD_DEBUG=y dpkg-buildpackage -B
Other
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 06:09:26PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think sticking with an env will make it much easier for some one to just
use dpkg-buildpackage (without modification) and call it like:
BUILD_DEBUG=y dpkg-buildpackage -B
Just a
27 matches
Mail list logo
