Re: circular dependencies in debian -> impact on emdebian
Hi Erik and everybody else,
Quoting Erik Andersen <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> On Wed Apr 07, 2004 at 01:02:05AM +0200, Philippe De Swert wrote:
> > > > Would this strategy avoid the need for a modified copy of
> > > > the rules files ^^^^ in a separate emdebian directory ?
> > The advantage is that we can add all our stuff in such a dir,
> > without annoying the regular Debian crowd.
> If debian-embedded is going to completely reinvent the wheel,
> they could just as easily reinvent the world using gentoo or gar
> or whatever. What you are proposing effectively means scrapping
> the entire existing debian packaging code base and starting over.
> I do not think the current packaging is sufficiently broken that
> it requires yet-another-entirely-new-and-different system. I
> think it would be much more sensible to work with the current
> debian build system and adjust things as needed....
This is not reinventing the wheel. I already implemented the use of an emdebian
subdir, and it seems to be way easier than using a rules file with a different
name. Actually we just need to pass an extra flag to dpkg-buildpackage which
will then use the emdebian subdir instead of the debian one. So the underlying
system stays the same. It was just to avoid cluttering up the existing rules
file.(however this problem seems to be solved if we switch to CDBS)
> > Anyway we also need changes to the control file. We need to use
> > another naming scheme, just to keep Debian and Emdebian
> > packages apart. Also the dependencies will be different for an
> > Emdebian or Debian package. (Will certainely happen if we start
> > splitting up libraries to gain space. Who needs libcrypt or
> > similar on his system if he has no application which uses it?)
> If every debian-embedded .deb package depends on uclibc, I think
> that should be sufficient to keep people from doing any sort of
> unwise mixing of binaries....
I would like to leave that option in. Emdebian should be able to compile with
uClibc as a standard libc, but people should be able to use another libc
(newlib or even glibc if they really want) when building from source. This
would allow greater freedom to our eventual users.
However you can do some control file editing from the Makefile, I already did
this (and forgot to mention that in my last mail)
1.CDBS seems to be the better way. However we still have a lot of packages that
use the previous full rules file approach.
2.We should start defining an Emdebian policy.
| Philippe De Swert -GNU/linux - uClinux freak-
| Stag developer http://stag.mind.be/
| Emdebian developer: http://www.emdebian.org
| Please do not send me documents in a closed format. (*.doc,*.xls,*.ppt)
| Use the open alternatives. (*.pdf,*.ps,*.html,*.txt)
| Why? http://pallieter.is-a-geek.org:7832/~johan/word/english/
Gestuurd via het webmailsysteem van het De Nayer Instituut: www.denayer.be