Bug#892593: [PATCH] libverto: FTCBFS / Please add a pkg.libverto.noglib build profile

So, in general, I think picking a single event backend should be fine. Most applications work with all event backends; krb5 certainly does. I'm fairly uncomfortable with the idea of using an extension package namespace here though because it seems like you'll need to break this cycle on every

Bug#892593: [PATCH] libverto: FTCBFS / Please add a pkg.libverto.noglib build profile

this approach seems a bit strange. Why would we want a package specific build profile rather than excluding glib from a stage1 build of libverto. Also, note that I'm about to update to a new version of libverto and start building for libevent. I wonder if for bootstrapping we want to pick one

Bug#892593: [PATCH] libverto: FTCBFS / Please add a pkg.libverto.noglib build profile

Source: libverto Version: 0.2.4-2.1 Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: debian-ri...@lists.debian.org Tags: patch User: debian-ri...@lists.debian.org Usertags: riscv64 Hello, we are in the process of bootstrapping a Debian port for the riscv64 architecture (https://wiki.debian.org/RISC-V). The