Re: Website and library packages
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 09:16:10PM -0500, utsl@quic.net wrote:
> * About packaging from /usr/src:
> I had been planning on writing something similar to kernel-package for FreeBSD.
> The basic idea was to do a make buildworld against the regular FreeBSD source
> tree, and then make multiple packages out of it. (i.e. libc package, kernel
> package, etc.)
That's something which hadn't occured to me :) Yes, that probably makes
things somewhat easier in some ways, although we end up with a rather huge
source package. I guess that it would probably be somewhat stripped down
to only include the stuff that we're concerned about? (That is one thing
I've found, though - a couple of the source packages I've built include
stuff from the kernel source, so building them both from the same package
would reduce duplication)
> That approach gets rid of a lot of hassles associated with upgrading the
> sources, and allows people to rebuild their kernel and core system. You just
> pull the new sources from CVS, and use the scripts to build debs. A lot like
> kernel-package, except that it has to handle more packages.
I've left the CVS directories in there, so it ought to be possible for
package maintainers to deal with upgrades. On the other hand, the idea of
a user being able to upgrade stuff in-situ sounds rather cool :) I'm not
sure whether the best policy here is to stick with the existing Debian
mentality of individual packages dealt with by different maintainers or a
huge package with the user having more choice over updates as you
suggest. What does everyone else think?
> On a related note, FreeBSD's Makefiles use "make" sometimes where they should
> use "${MAKE}", so I put the BSD make into /usr/bsd/bin. Then I mangle $PATH
> before running make from debian/rules, so that the FreeBSD Makefiles always
> get BSD make rather than GNU. Sounds like NetBSD has better Makefiles.
Yup, this isn't something I've encountered so far.
> * On the webpage, you mention problems with shadow:
> I had the exact same problem with FreeBSD, and I see two choices. Either use
> native passwd, adduser, etc. or get the shadow package to build a library (I
> believe it can, but it's disabled), and recompile the Debian passwd and friends
> with that. Then it's just a matter of getting PAM working.
PAM seems to be working (due to the problems with passwd and company I
haven't been able to check it too effectively yet), but there were some
issues with applying both the NetBSD patches and the Debian patches. I
think I got those sorted, but doing this in a clean way that works with
the existing package isn't going to be a great deal of fun :)
> I'd just use the BSD utilities. Most users probably either use ifup/ifdown,
> or can figure it out. It should be much easier to modify ifup to know about
> BSD-style ifconfig than to try to make some replacement that's compatible.
> Besides, Linux already has both ifconfig/route and "ip", with totally different
> semantics.
Ah, that's true. Yup, the init scripts all use ifup now, so just having
our own version of that ought to deal with the problem nicely.
Thanks,
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: