[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: a graphical interface for debian-installer

[Sebastian Ley]
> I have been working on that issue, and made some progress. But every
> little progress pops up more problems, so I would be glad if some
> library experts can give me some advice.
> This is what I have done for directfb (should be a generic issue for
> libaries that use other compile options for the installer than for the
> normal package):
> It builds several packages which are most imporatantly:
> * libdirectfb-0.9-16, containing:
>   /usr/lib/libdirectfb-0.9.so.16.0.0
>   /usr/lib/libdirectfb-0.9.so.16
> * libdirectfb-0.9-16-dev, containing:
>   /usr/lib/libdirectfb.so
>   /usr/lib/libdirectfb.la
> * libdirectfb-0.9-udeb-16, containing:
>   /usr/lib/libdirectfb-0.9-udeb.so.16.0.0
>   /usr/lib/libdirectfb-0.9-udeb.so.16
> which will be build as udeb and never be installed on a build system.

Are these libraries different (different ABI/API) from the ones in
libdirectfb-0.9-16?  If they are, I'm interesting in why they are
different, and how they are different.  If they are identical, you
probably should use the same file names and sonames for the libraries
in both packages.

> * libdirectfb-0.9-udeb-16-dev, containing:
>   /usr/lib/libdirectfb-0.9-udeb.so.16.0.0
>   /usr/lib/libdirectfb-0.9-udeb.so.16
>   /usr/lib/libdirectfb.so
>   /usr/lib/libdirectfb.la
> which must be installed on a system, where you want to build programs
> for the installer.

Why do you need a special udeb-dev?

> Any help is appreciated as well as comments of whether the concept
> as a whole is okay...

The other udebs I have seen are just the same libraries as the normal
ones (perhaps compiled using -Os), and the normal -dev packages can be
used when building the udebs depending on the library.  Is this not an
option here?

Reply to: