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

kernel-linux-*, generic build process



> I think it's a very good idea.
> This names is misleading.

Not for Debian GNU/Linux ;)
Well, the name is not actually misleading, the package does contain a
kernel. And i don't know wheter we actually will have netbsd kernel
packages in arch-linux, and otherwise round (do they build?)

But we should consider adding another level to the directory hierarchy:
i386/linux
i386/netbsd
i386/hurd
or another way round? debian/sid/linux/i386 ? debian/linux/i386/sid ?

> You should file a wishlist bug-report to any of the kernel-* packages.

Well, future packages should maybe named kernel-linux-* for peace ;)

BTW: I really would like having a more-freebsd-port-like build system.
I happen to not like freebsd much, yet, but i consider it a good idea to
be able to use upstream tarballs without modification for freebsd,
netbsd and debian as well.
So i don't like the .diff's much (apart from all this uuencoding of
binary files etc. ;)
I think it would be better if we had a tarball containing the debian
dir, and a second tarball that is just copied into the build directory.

mypackage-version/debian/*
mypackage-version/unmodified-upstream.tar.gz

It shouldn't be hard to write build scripts that extract the upstream
tarball, apply a patch similar to the old diff, and the run the old
build script...

Harder to maintain, but neater for upgrades, is the build system as used
by the xfree packages and freebsd ports, where on each build the source
tarball is extracted, then a whole bunch of patches is applied.

Greetings,
Erich



Reply to: