Re: FPM in Debian archive [Was: Re: Bug#704686: ITP: ruby-arr-pm -- RPM reader and writer Ruby library]
On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 11:50:35 +0200, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> > Jon Dowland wrote:
> > >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.
Well TBH, an upstream that's creating a program to package stuff that
cannot be bothered to read documentation about how stuff is done
properly (because "you don't have time for this crap" ), does not
inspire any confidence...
There's other problematic stuff though, like hardcoded shared library
dependencies w/o using dpkg-shlibdeps, or the injection of maintainer
scripts to add ldconfig calls, that I've spotted after a very quick
 <http://goo.gl/sWs3Z> (slides 17, 18)
<https://github.com/jordansissel/fpm> (section "The Solution - FPM")
Thanks to Wouter for pointing this out on debian-policy