On 2020/02/10 17:31, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 12:58:49PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > Maybe worth @comment'ing the empty share/doc/open62541/open62541.html/
> > directory?
>
> Yes. I do not want to build the html documentation as it adds so
> many files to the package. It can be read online anyway.
>
> Having a pdf in the package is useful for offline developent. For
> that I had to add some missing build dependencies to print/texlive/texmf.
>
> I guess splitting a -doc sub package is not worth it.
>
> > Is there a reason to use share/open62541/examples rather than the standard
> > i.e. share/examples/open62541?
>
> I was to lazy to patch it :-) Fixed.
>
> > I don't think it's worth bytecode-compiling the tools.
>
> Makes sense. portcheck suggested to do it, but your arguments are
> better.
>
> I have build the library with debug symbols as I want to do development
> on top of it. Do we have a policy for that?
If you only need symbols on amd64 then I'd prefer just setting
DEBUG_PACKAGES=${BUILD_PACKAGES}, which will automatically split into
open62541 and debug-open62541 packages with detached symbols in the latter.
If you would like them on other arches too then
-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo makes sense.
> New port attached.
OK.
> bluhm
