-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
debian: introducing nodocs and nocheck DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS (smoe:debian_nocheck) #2647
Open
smoe
wants to merge
6
commits into
LinuxCNC:master
Choose a base branch
from
smoe:debian_nocheck
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
e98ad1d
debian: Declaring deps required only for docs/testing
smoe dfb63c0
debian: petter reminded about asciidoc required for man pages
smoe 92ac393
Rebased on master. Pointing to selective builds in d/configure
smoe 8a86d50
docs: quick build instructions update
smoe ab53bd4
debian: Declaring deps required only for docs/testing
smoe 82ebabb
docs: rodw-au on building Debian packages
smoe File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is it really a good idea to have two ways to set the same flag? I suspect this will break the principle of least surprise. What should happen if someone enable documentation building and use the nodocs option? Which one should take effect? I suspect it is better to only have one flag, and allow both the option and the enable setting to set or unset this flag. At the moment this patch allow nodocs to override enable_documentation. Is that least surprising?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suggest to ensure enable_build_documentation is "" if nodocs is set, and use only this test in the code, to ensure not two partly overlapping settings are used in the code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I just had a look at it again. The "enable_build_documentation" is set by debian/configure.in - and I agree with you, this should just always be enabled and the decision to build or not be left to Debian's regular semantics, i.e. the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS parameters. The point of this patch is to help transitioning towards that change of control. So, now you can decide not to package the documentation (by adding the nodocs) even though the configuration (by debian/configure) was expecting you to build it. The other way around does not work - you cannot enable the building of the documentation by omitting the nodocs if you have previously disabled it in debian/configure. I tend to think this is all very much how it should be - given the constraint to impose minimal changes to the current code base.
On a sidenote, at the beginning of debian/rules.in, there is
so enable_build_documentation will only be available if nodocs is not an option. I tend to think I am happy with how it is. I am uncertain if we should already use the nodocs/nocheck flags in our CI.