Subject: Re: emacs22
To: Dieter Baron <email@example.com>
From: Mark Davies <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/09/2007 00:20:19
On Friday 08 June 2007, Dieter Baron wrote:
> > > What we should do is specify which option combinations are
> > > important enough so we want binary packages for them and then
> > > build all of those during a bulk build.
I was just thinking this was the way to go but had no thoughts on how
to do it.
> > > Joerg's new bulk build framework supports building multiple
> > > versions of a package from one package directory. So we would
> > > need a way to specify option combinations (and have the bulk
> > > build framework pick that up) and a way to name the resulting
> > > binary packages.
> > >
> > > Maybe something like PKG_OPTIONS_BINTAGS that is a list of
> > > tags for binary packages to build from this directory (binary
> > > packages will be named PKGBASE-TAG-VERSION.tgz) and
> > > PKG_OPTIONS_BIN.tag that lists the options setting. In
> > > additionto the tags, a binary package with the suggested
> > > options is built, called PKGBASE-VERSION.tgz.
> > That's sounds good enough, but until it is put in use... we
> > should stick to the "old" way of doing things (at least for emacs
> > I'd say).
> Leaving the packages that are already done in the old way until
> the new way works sounds reasonable.
I'll keep the emacs-nox11 package for this update but certainly look
forward to something like the above happening and being able to get
rid of it.