On 08/06/2007, at 12:14, Dieter Baron wrote:

>   Because having separate packages for different build options does
> not scale well and is hard to maintain.
>
>   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.
>
>   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).

What I'm wondering about also, and related to this, is if we could  
build different binary packages for subsets of built files.  This  
could simplify, e.g., the gstreamer packages (and many other packages  
that are currently split), as the package could build *everything*  
and then we could easily generate tiny packages for each plugin.

This could also be useful to easily split packages providing  
libraries into run-time only files (the .so's) and the headers, as  
almost any Linux distribution does.

IIRC, jlam@ was working on this a long time ago; dunno what happened  
to his changes.

-- 
Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmerino@ac.upc.edu>