Re: another new package/debmake problems
In article <9710271346.AA14144@physik.phy.tu-dresden.de> you wrote:
: There's no release date yet because I've not much time and need
: to solve the problems first (of course :-)
: The main problem is the interaction between the program (sidplay)
: and a library (libsidplay). When I compile the program it expects
: the library at a very distinct place. Is it ok to rewrite the Makefiles
: (from scratch?) in order to reflect another source code arrangement?
I think that is an issue to be decided by you. Using your own Makefile can
cause a lot of work when upstream updates come in. I try to use as much as
possible of the upstream Makefile in order to reduce the work with
incorporating upstream updates.
: One of the other problems I would consider as a bug in the latest debmake.
: I want to build a single binary .deb and a library .deb. After calling
: deb-make in the library source dir I get a line in debian/rules which
: I don't understand at all. It tries to copy (by means of "install") several
: header files which don't belong to sidplay itself: gdbm.h for example. Do I
: need to install libgdbm-dev or is this really a bug?
: When I remove the offending line, debian/rules binary builds my package without
The debian/rules file is an initial version to be edited according to your
needs. Especially for libraries the debian/rules file has to be
edited extensively. The default template for debian/rules in the
library situation provided may not be suitable. And maybe the library
template is out of date since I rarely use it.
Do not hesitate to change things the way you need them.
: Is it ok to use debmake? Recently there were some packages announced
: on debian-changes which claimed not to be done with the use of debmake.
: Wheres the culprit, if any?
debmake is an option to build packages and not mandatory. Some people like
to have more control and try to avoid the "debstd" script. debstd might
make some assumptions in order to simplify things and thus debstd might not
be suitable for certain situations of package building. It is a tool to be
used if suitable and thrown out if causing trouble.
: Does the -dev package contain any binary libraries or was this another
: problem of the sidplay source package? In fact, I ended up with the -dev
: package (libsidplay-dev) containing all the libraries from libsidplay too.
The dev package usually only contains the headers.
: Should a postinst-script test if the kernel is sound capable and output
: a warning to the user if it's not? Actually it would be no problem to
: examine cat /dev/sndstat.
That is certainly good.
--- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ ---
Please always CC me when replying to posts on mailing lists.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .