From: Kris Van Hees <kris.van.hees@oracle.com>
To: Kris Van Hees <kris.van.hees@oracle.com>
Cc: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>, Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@oracle.com>,
dtrace-devel@oss.oracle.com, dtrace@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [DTrace-devel] [PATCH v4] Add packaging configuration for Debian
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2026 13:39:49 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aZDBdXxe0MAzO9l2@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aZClSFDq/mk2Pqjy@oracle.com>
On Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 11:39:36AM -0500, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 01:34:31PM +0000, Sam James wrote:
> > Nick Alcock via DTrace-devel <dtrace-devel@oss.oracle.com> writes:
> >
> > > On 10 Feb 2026, Kris Van Hees via DTrace-devel outgrape:
> > >
> > >> Packaging configuration files for Debian are provided in dists/debian.
> > >
> > > Nice! Seems to work, even on Debian stable (I was sure I'd need at least
> > > testing, but no!).
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >> diff --git a/dists/debian/patches/debian-configure.patch b/dists/debian/patches/debian-configure.patch
> > >> new file mode 100644
> > >> index 00000000..d4a89bb9
> > >> --- /dev/null
> > >> +++ b/dists/debian/patches/debian-configure.patch
> > >> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> > >> +Description: issue a warning for unknown configure options
> > >> + The Debian build system specifies configure options that are not known to
> > >> + the DTrace configure script. They should not cause the configure script
> > >> + to abort.
> > >> +--- dtrace-2.0.4.orig/configure
> > >> ++++ dtrace-2.0.4/configure
> > >> +@@ -172,8 +172,7 @@ for option in "$@"; do
> > >> + HAVE_VALGRIND=*) write_config_var VALGRIND "$option";;
> > >> + HAVE_BPFV3=*) write_config_var BPFV3 "$option";;
> > >> + HAVE_BPFMASM=*) write_config_var BPFMASM "$option";;
> > >> +- *) echo "Unknown option $option" >&2
> > >> +- exit 1;;
> > >> ++ *) echo "Unknown option $option" >&2;;
> > >> + esac
> > >> + done
> > >
> > > I assumed you could just stuff an || true in there, but this is being
> > > invoked by dh_auto_configure, so that option isn't available (plus, of
> > > course, if there's an actual error other than unknown args, we don't
> > > want to fail).
> > >
> > > Maybe we should just not exit with exitcode 1 on unknown configure
> > > options, only IIRC Gentoo actually wants us to. This may be the best we
> > > can do.
> >
> > I really doubt this is the first / only package for Debian where there's
> > a non-autoconf configure script.
> >
> > The real issue here is letting whatever Debian machinery that calls
> > configure think it is autoconf. ebuilds do the same, by default econf
> > will pass things assuming it's autoconf.
> >
> > I'm sure there's a way to override that?
>
> Well, while the configure script Nick wrote isn't autoconf, I believe he did
> make it accept optionsn autoconf's configure style and naming. That said, the
> script does not support all the options that autoconf's configure scripts
> could accept (and that are passed by dh_auto_configure). Hence this patch.
>
> I guess we could replace the dh_auto_configure invocation with an explicit
> invocation of our configure script, but then we need to figure out all the
> explicit options we do need to pass to set various paths correctly based on
> the build system configuration. That seems to me like replicating work that
> is already done for us by dh_auto_configure. None of the options we ignore
> are actually relevant (and if in the future, they are, we'd need to patch
> our configure script anyway).
>
> So I would be inclined to argue that ignoring the unrecognized options is not
> a bad option. It reports what is being ignored.
>
> Alternatively, I'd suggest we update the configure script to actually support
> the options that we get complaints about right now, providing an implementation
> that makes sense (accept and ignore some, accept and use some others).
>
> I could go either way here. I don't think one is worse than the other, aside
> from having 'accept and ignore' cases feeling a bit less ideal to me because
> it hides the 'ignore' effect (unless you print a message we're ignoring it and
> then we're back to my current solution anyway).
>
> Thoughts?
Following up to myself... perhaps we should improve the configure script to
be compliant with the GNU Coding Standards expectations of a configure script,
which would avoid all this... It would require us to accept the currently
unrecognized options for paths, and support --disable-option-checking which
will allow us to silently ignore unknown --with/without-* --enable/disable-*
options.
I would assume that will satisfy the requirements of pretty much all distros,
incl. Gentoo and Debian?
From what I can see, it should be quite trivial to do. We'd need to include
config.sub and config.guess I expect (unless we can pull in systemwide versions
of that using a dependency), and need to generate a config.status script, but
none of that is difficult.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-14 18:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-10 20:59 [PATCH v4] Add packaging configuration for Debian Kris Van Hees
2026-02-13 15:14 ` [DTrace-devel] " Nick Alcock
2026-02-14 13:34 ` Sam James
2026-02-14 16:39 ` Kris Van Hees
2026-02-14 18:39 ` Kris Van Hees [this message]
2026-02-14 17:10 ` Kris Van Hees
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aZDBdXxe0MAzO9l2@oracle.com \
--to=kris.van.hees@oracle.com \
--cc=dtrace-devel@oss.oracle.com \
--cc=dtrace@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=nick.alcock@oracle.com \
--cc=sam@gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.