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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox