Re: Building my first package
On 10 Mar 1998, Gregory S. Stark wrote:
>
> I'm building my first package and I think I'm generally doing OK.
> I do have a few error messages that are mystifying me, and I have
> a few packaging questions the documentation doesn't answer.
>
> One question, I can't find any mention in documentation of is the common
> practice of providing only one /usr/doc directory and having the other
> packages just symlink it. Is this preferable to having separate directories
> for related packages? I can certainly see how it would make it easier to find
> things.
This is only done when one source package creates several binary packages,
all with the same copyright and changelog. If there is no other package
specific information the symlinks reduce disk consuming duplication of
these files.
>
> Also, if I'm releasing a libc6 shared library that never existed as a libc5
> library in Debian should I still stick with the g suffix?
>
Santiago gave the correct answer here.
> Here are the mystifying errors and warnings:
>
> > dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: unknown output from ldd on
> > `debian/zephyr-server/usr/sbin/zephyrd': ` libzephyr.so.2 => not found'
>
> Of course it's not found, it's provided by one of the packages i'm building.
> Surely dpkg-shlibdeps can deal with this? I could set LD_LIBRARY_PATH to
> include the build directory that has the shared library, but is that really
> necessary to avoid the warning?
I must leave this one for someone else. I vaguely remember a discussion of
this kind of problem but I've never encountered it myself and remain
ignorant ;-(
>
> > FAKEROOT: after stat, failing?: known=0, stat=d:i=(769:0), mode=0155577,
> > nlink=33204, own=(1,2133), size=25510
>
> I get these a lot, should I worry? I still have libc6 2.0.6-2 installed,
> maybe this isn't a problem with 2.0.7?
>
I don't know about this one either, but it couldn't hurt to upgrade to the
latest 2.0.7pre1 so you can find out what the current bugs are ;-)
I don't use FAKEROOT but should find some time (what's that?) to try it
out just so I can say "Yes! It worked for me!"...
> > dpkg-gencontrol: warning: unknown substitution variable ${shlibs:Depends}
>
I think this is a side effect of the other shlibdeps error.
> The resulting control files seem ok, and that's copied straight out of the
> documentation. Am I doing something wrong?
>
> > no utmp entry available and LOGNAME not defined; using uid of process (0) at
> > /usr/lib/dpkg/controllib.pl line 29.
>
> I get this all over the place, I don't understand it because I can test perl's
> getlogin() as myself and under fakeroot and it always works. I'm pretty sure I
> got the utmp transition right when I upgraded to libc6 too.
I get it too. It is not relevant, but dpkg insists on informing you
anyway. Much the same as the message, repeated 3 to 4 times about where it
is building the source file, these are clutter issues that should be easy
to fix...again a question of time...
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_ Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
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 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
--
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to listmaster@debian.org .
Reply to: