On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Because they want that anyone can easily rebuild it with that option > > disabled? > > That is already supported using the existing DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS mechanism. > > I may be confused about your mental model here, but it seems like you're > moving rules about how the package is built from the package itself into > dpkg-buildpackage. If that's really what's happening, I think that is a > truly dreadful idea and strongly object. It should be possible to build > the package using whatever flags and options are the default by running > debian/rules build without involving dpkg-buildpackage at all, which > implies that the package should not be relying on dpkg-buildpackage to > provide compiler and linker flags. Those defaults should be in > debian/rules, just as they always have been for Debian packages.
I think we're already on that path for quite some time. If your package uses DEB_(BUILD|HOST)_* variables, you rely on dpkg-buildpackage setting them for you (with dpkg-architecture). The same is expected with default values of builder/linker flags now that dpkg-buildpackage provides reasonable defaults. So yes, I'm somehow building on this model where dpkg-buildpackage can simplify the work of packager by providing some distribution-wide reasonable defaults. People have noticed that and already requested that we can call arbitrary targets of debian/rules with all the proper initialization done precisely for test purpose during packaging work (see #477916). > If some set of flags, such as hardening, should be possible to easily > disable, this is exactly the same case as we have right now with > optimization and with stripping. The way to support that is to specify > another DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS flag which, if set, instructs the package to > modify its behavior accordingly. Furthermore, that allows the package > maintainer to provide more useful defaults specific to that package, such > as exactly the hardening flags that *that* package supports, rather than > some default (and possibly changing) set from dpkg-buildpackage. Ok makes sense. In the case of hardening, it means that we have to modify each and every package to enable it though. I suppose that the people pushing this proposal would like to have the option to enable it globally and have broken packages opt out and/or disable specific hardening options. Without taking into account the specific risks associated to any default activation of build hardening, I find that having a generic system where you can start early with an opt-in policy, have the stuff matures, and switch to an opt-out policy later can make sense (if that plan is announced early and that people know by advance how to opt-out explicitely). > See above. By moving the logic from debian/rules into dpkg-buildpackage, > we would be breaking a common workflow when working with packages. > Running debian/rules build in an unpacked source package to test would no > longer be a reasonable development step since you may get a completely > different compile than dpkg-buildpackage would give you. That might be so, but I'm not sure why it would be a major problem. It can take some time to change habits but unless you see real drawbacks, I'm not convinced that there are good reasons to revert in that direction. > I think the way that optimization and stripping are handled right now > works fairly well in practice, and I think we should be building on that > as a model, not replacing it with some entirely different method that > relies on additional external programs to wrap debian/rules. > > The choice between always and by default can be handled using the existing > DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS mechanism just as optimization and stripping are now. Well, right now buildd do not use DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS at all AFAIK. So there's no way to enable anything globally with this method in practice. And I certainly wouldn't want to have to manually set DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS to get a build similar to what the buildd would do. The current practice only has options to disable something that is enabled by default. I'm not sure you can usefully build on that to provide a mechanism where something is disabled by default and that can be enabled either by the maintainer or by the builder. But maybe such a scheme is not desirable in general, we might not want to offer any option for the builder that has not been validated by the maintainer. I don't know. Maybe we won't have any other situation similar to the hardening one and it's over-kill to try to generalize it. the Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
