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

Re: Proposal: New source format (was Re: [Fwd: Re: dpkg question])



> You might want to unpack a source package for other reasons than
> to build it -- e.g., I've sometimes searched for documentation. A
> non-programmer might want to do this so that they can typeset the
> documentation in LaTeX, instead of printing out the LaTeX2HTML'd
> version.

The srcpostinst thing was just a trial baloon - I don't think it
went over very well.  So I'll drop that idea.  But if we go with
a source package file format that is the same basic thing as
what a .deb file is, we can always add it later (if needed).

I think it's better to unpack the upstream sources in the
debian/rules makefile anyways (using any tool available on the
system).  I'd oppose having a specialized script file for
unpacking them, since it's unnecessary -- you can already do
that from the debian/rules makefile.

As I said before, I'm quite interested in having a source package
that automatically unpacks the upstream sources and patches itself 
for the purposes of debugging -- and also can be set to automatically
build too.  This is the equivalent of a "make world".  But nobody's
saying that the system administrator can't have the option of
just "installing" the source, without running any scripts.  This
should probably be the default behaviour.

Before I was advocating the use of a separate "sdpkg" program to
install source packages, but it could probably be done with 
just "dpkg".

ie. 

dpkg -i jdk_1.0.2-7.sdeb 

Since the extension is .sdeb, dpkg would know that it was a source
package, and just put it in the appropriate place.  Maybe
/var/lib/dpkg/source/jdk_1.0.2-7 possibly?   Since the package
has dependencies (to .upsdeb's for upstream source, and .deb's for
binaries needed to build it), those would also need to be installed too.

Cheers,

 - Jim



Attachment: pgp889n0pb2Jm.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: