Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#61363 - Create compilation database for C/C++ packages
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by Deepankar Sharma (deepankar_sharma) - Saturday, 12 January 2019, 10:53 GMT
Last edited by Eli Schwartz (eschwartz) - Wednesday, 23 January 2019, 04:41 GMT
Opened by Deepankar Sharma (deepankar_sharma) - Saturday, 12 January 2019, 10:53 GMT
Last edited by Eli Schwartz (eschwartz) - Wednesday, 23 January 2019, 04:41 GMT
|
DetailsIt would be very useful for developers to have a compilation database generated for C/C++ packages since having a compilation database allows many tools (like indexing, static analysis etc) to work seamlessly. More information about compilation databases can be found at https://clang.llvm.org/docs/JSONCompilationDatabase.html.
For packages using CMake as their build system generating a compilation database is as simple as adding CMAKE_EXPORT_COMPILE_COMMANDS as a cmake flag. Other build systems (like make) can generate compilation databases as well using a tool like https://github.com/nickdiego/compiledb |
This task depends upon
Closed by Eli Schwartz (eschwartz)
Wednesday, 23 January 2019, 04:41 GMT
Reason for closing: Won't implement
Additional comments about closing: No adequate explanation for why this is something a package should be doing.
Wednesday, 23 January 2019, 04:41 GMT
Reason for closing: Won't implement
Additional comments about closing: No adequate explanation for why this is something a package should be doing.
You have still completely failed to explain why you thought this was relevant to packaging *binaries* rather than source code. Your latest comment tells me *nothing* I did not already know from your initial feature request, or indeed, from my knowledge about computing which I do in fact possess and indicated as such over a week ago.
Stop trying to tell me what one is, and start trying to explain how you think we should package it...