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

Re: forking packages and private archive

* pjordan@whitehorse.blackwire.com <pjordan@whitehorse.blackwire.com> [011218 14:04]:
> When I go to install a system (I am working with more than 70), I 
> need it to get "my" packages in replacement of the ones
> from the default mirror, but otherwise I would like to track
> the default mirror (and I will keep submitting bug reports - sigh).
> So what is the best way to do this ?

I have a more normal setup with many locally changes packages. I
have them appended with -local in the name, put them under
Section local/whatever and let it provide the name of the original
package. I just put them into some subdir
dists/stable/local/binary-i386, run dpkg-scanpackages/sources over it
and put in sources.list, normally using an modified ssh-method
or http.

> Anyway.  It would really simplify things if I could maintain
> a partial mirror and have the appropriate "Release" and "Packages"
> files created automatically.

I create no Release-file, as apt does not need one. (Perhaps the
installer might need one, but I do not have to install that often
for an selfmodified installer)

The Packages file can be easily generated by dpkg-scanpackages (which
is in dpkg-dev, so most likely already installed when you build debian-
packages). The override file can normally just let blank.

Just do:

touch o
mkdir $E 
cp *.deb $E/
dpkg-scanpackages $E o >$E/Packages
gzip <$E/Packages >$E/Packages.gz

and you have an Packages.gz, that apt-get update can parse
and take Packages from.

(I also wrote some script using dialog to put packages automatically
 into this tree and recreating the Packages.gz, as I have stable/local
 and wotato/* here)

> Thank you, and I welcome suggestions, pointers and advice
> regarding the above topics.  I am indeed slowly compiling
> a a website to describe what exactly I am doing with
> the goal of making it a simply "apt-get" + debconf task
> for someone to repeat.

This thing about debconf sounds really intresting...

  Bernhard R. Link

Reply to: