FPM in Debian archive [Was: Re: Bug#704686: ITP: ruby-arr-pm -- RPM reader and writer Ruby library]
> Jon Dowland wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 05:33:20PM +0200, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> >> This ruby gem is needed by FPM (see my ITP).
> >Hi Laurent, thanks for the clarification â?? to ask a related
> >question. What's the worth of FPM on Debian? Especially given the
> >issues that Wouter has raised in the bugÂ¹
> >Â¹ http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=22;bug=688896
> Quite, I'm concerned on that front too. Do we want to encourage or
> make it easier for people to use tools that don't care about our
> packaging policies?
I would confess that I'm mainly using it to create RPM's at work. For
some users it's easier (and faster) to use fpm than starting to dig into
a specfile or a debian package.
We already have checkinstall in the archive. The main difference here
with checkinstall is that fpm allows to package easily a complete tree,
I think that checkinstall requires some kind of 'make install' as it's
diverting some syscalls to track which files are installed. I know
nothing about the quality/policy compliance of the .deb generated by
I've opened a bug on the upstream bug tracker about using dpkg instead
of ar/tar directly.