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

Re: An alternative to deb-make Re: deb-make

On 18 Feb 1997, Michael Alan Dorman wrote:

> Herbert Xu <herbert@greathan.apana.org.au> writes:
> > If you mean that the conffiles etc. are to be placed in those
> > subdirectories in the Debian source packages that I am afraid that that
> > is against the standard.  See the mailing list archives for discussions
> > on this issue.  That was the reason debmake had to put those files in
> > the /debian directory instead.
> Then bugger the standard, because it's broken.

Sorry but I disagree. There is nothing "broken" in the standard, only in
some attempts to impliment it.

> The standard, unfortunately, ignores many issues pertaining to
> multi-deb packages, presumably because Ian, as familiar as he is with
> the packaging system, simply wasn't sufficiently familiar with what
> was involved in dealing with such packages on a day-to-day basis.
I have built and maintained multi-binary packages under the new standard
without resorting to deb-make. There are no problems with the standard
here, you just have to do it "right".

> Look, for instance, at the scheme for using the whole dpkg-shlibdeps
> and dpkg-gencontrol, and the contortions you have to go through in
> order to generate different dependencies for different packages, and
> then try to tell me that that design reflected a clear understanding
> of what was going to simplify the lives of multi-deb package
> developers.

I don't know what "contortions" you are referring to. This has always
worked fine for me.

> It is, IMAO, time to correct all that.  If discussion of a tool to
> replace debstd helps us realize that there are places where the
> standard is sub-optimal, then we should update it.  It is not written
> in stone.  It's been around for six or eight months, we've broken it
> in, now it's time to look at the things about it that irritate and
> annoy us and fix them---we're not talking about anything
> revolutionary, but evolutionary.
I agree with most of what you say here. I just don't know what this has to
do with deb-make?

> Another, final, interesting point about the standard: it was also
> submitted to the project as fait accompli---which I find ironic
> considering that one of Ian's complaints against debstd is that it
> wasn't submitted to the commentary of the developer community.
Well, I can only say that you weren't paying attention. My memory is that
Ian discussed the details as much as was needed.
Ian is responsible for the original design of the packaging software, and
I would trust his judgement on these issues over anyone elses
Let's stay focused on the real issues that need work rather than
imagining problems that only exist because someone has tried to "work
around" the packaging standard.
Dpkg-source needs error traps that will keep a package from building that
will not unpack. There are other problems as well, but these need to be
"fixed" in a careful, deliberate fashion.
If I can help with the multi-binary packaging issues, don't hesitate to
communicate via private e-mail. I'll be glad to help.



------------                                          --------------

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

------------ If you don't see what you want, just ask --------------

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com

Reply to: