On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 1:33 AM Thomas Weißschuh <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2024-07-17 06:57:47+0000, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 05:51:21PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > ...
> > > > > > diff --git a/scripts/package/PKGBUILD b/scripts/package/PKGBUILD
> > > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > > index 000000000000..eb3957fad915
> > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > +++ b/scripts/package/PKGBUILD
> > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
> > > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> > > > > > +# Maintainer: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > +# Contributor: Jan Alexander Steffens (heftig) <heftig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +pkgbase=linux-upstream
> > ...
> > > Perhaps, this may make sense.
> > >
> > > Currently,
> > > pkgname=("${pkgbase}" "${pkgbase}-headers" "${pkgbase}-api-headers")
> > > is hard-coded.
> > >
> > > I do not think linux-upstream-headers make sense
> > > when CONFIG_MODULE is disabled.
> > >
> > > scripts/package/mkspec turns off with_devel
> > > when CONFIG_MODULE is disabled.
>
> Ack.
>
> > Yes, I think that is a reasonable change to make. In the face of that
> > potential change, would it make sense to slightly adjust the
> > makedepends? pahole is only needed when CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF is enabled
> > but I guess no other package building infrastructure makes dependencies
> > conditional in that manner.
>
> The pahole dependency optimization seems like an overcomplication.
> Arch Linux in general is not hell-bent on minimizing dependencies,
> for example there are no dev-packages at all.
> Also if the kernel will require pahole in more cases it will create
> churn.
>
FWIW, we conditionally added build-dependency for the deb package
in the past, but I gave up on maintaining it.
See b88365b6d74edc88a9d283c837fec05b13d401a6
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
