Re: Binaryless uploads [Was: FTBFS: architecture all packages]
"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Brian May wrote:
> > Strictly speaking, this is not true.
> > webmin is buildable by source.
> > I think even debian/rules works. However, the binary produced by
> > debian/rules is very much different to the binary available in the
> > archive.
> > It would appear that the maintainer doesn't understand that you can have
> > one source package in Debian generate multiple binary packages.
> I'm well aware of the concept. However here's the deal: Webmin has a
> whole bunch of modules that depend on a wide range of other Debian
> packages. So having one binary package would result in a huge list of
Quote: "... that you can have one source package in Debian generate
multiple binary packages"
> dependencies and webmin would take forever to end up in testing and
> people would have to install all kind of crap they don't need. Thus the
> first thing I did (actually it was a patch from Phil Hands iirc) was to
> make each module into a seperate binary package.
Having multiple binary packages certainly is nice. Doesn't mean
> This isn't a complete solution. Let us say there is an RC bug in the
> wu-ftpd module so it is unable to enter testing. Because the fundamental
> unit of the archive is the source package, because of the problem with
> that one module, the postfix, LDAP, file upload... etc. etc. won't go in
> Now you may say "so what?" Let all the modules go in together when they
> are all ready. The thing is the only reason they are distributed together
> is for the convienience of the upstream author. In fact there is little
> to no logical connection between most of the modules. Inter-release
> updates are done on a per-module basis not as a big tarball.
Then the source should be split in a way that the normal debian/rules
files work and common files (like headers) stuffed into a -dev package
you can build-depend on.
> > 2. doesn't build using standard debian/rules build process.
> Now this I acknowledge is a problem. I am forcing people to go through
> extra hoops (albeit modest hoops IMO) to make webmin .debs. One of the
> reasons the hack has taken the shape it has is precisely because these
> packages are never autobuilt.
> At the time I couldn't think of an obvious way to fit what I was doing
> into the standard debian/rules framework and frankly I haven't thought a
> lot about it since. If you can provide some clues I'd be happy to
> implement them.
> I suppose one interim thing I could do to lessen confusion is have the
> webmin orig.tar.gz contain only the source that makes up the webmin binary
> package. But I thought someone somewhere might want to have th tarball as
> distributed upstream.
Which is a policy violation. So fix it.