Re: dpkg v126.96.36.199 comments and suggestions.
I have no idea why you sent this to me; I'm forwarding it on to
firstname.lastname@example.org. I'll try to respond as I can, though.
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 01:29:03PM -0400, M Sweger wrote:
> I'm trying to compile dpkg v188.8.131.52 for linux v2.2.1 using
> libc v2.0.7pre6 and egcs v1.0.3. Here are some problems and comments
> in items [A-C].
> A). Ran configure script as ./configure --prefix=/usr --disable-nls
> all other options defaulted to or aren't used.
> Problem: The s/w pkg overwrites some routines
> /usr/man/man1/md5sum.1 --- I manually deleted this one.
> The GNU s/w pkg texutils v1.22 builds and installs the above "md5sum"
> files along with putting install-info in a different directory than
> what dpkg does. The dpkg *should not* install these since this
> destroys the configuration management of files that one is trying to
> do. I may get an old copy of these routines vs. my newer ones or
> the other way around depending on which on is installed last.
> Installs a duplicate of this s/w routine
> /usr/sbin/install-info vs. /usr/bin/install-info
> However, it installs install-info.8 as a /usr/man/man8 man page
> whereas GNU s/w pkg texinfo v3.12 doesn't have one.
> This is because the production release one only has info documents
> and no man pages. The pre-release one known as 3.12i does have it
> as .1 and alot of the other missing man pages. Beware that
> ftp://alpha/gnu/org/gnu has v3.12h, but a v3.12i does exist from
> the author.
The different install-info is an old problem; we're looking at merging
the two back together. Note that neither of these problems occurs if
you use the debian package of the tex tools. Dpkg is designed to
install on a debian system primarily.
> B). It would be nice if packaging.text.gz is made part of the s/w pkg
> instead of as another file. Then during the make install it would be
> copied to /usr/doc/dpkg. Thus, I manually installed packaging.text
> here since it was a separate file. Perhaps it is better
> to call packaging.text.gz, dpkg-packaging.text.gz since this is more
> descriptive and tells me right away what it belong with. But still,
> it should be included in the dpkg-184.108.40.206.tar.gz file.
Thoughts from the list? I think it's in there somewhere, but I haven't
touched dpkg in a year.
> C). Version information. After installing a s/w pkg such as dpkg or any
> other it is nice if each of the installed utlities (scripts or binaries)
> be able to display the s/w pkg name they came from and the version.
> It is preferable to give the s/w pkg name instead of the utility since
> this helps in determining which s/w pkg it came from so that one can
> get the latest and greatest.
> Some utilities understand the options -V, -v, --version. Others,
> understand it by giving the usage options, and still others none at all.
> The dpkg does all of these and isn't consistent across all the compiled
> binary utilities. The scripts that are in /usr/lib/dpkg don't all
> have at least comment information that gives their version number.
> Some even say per their usage statement that using this option it
> gives this version but then it doesn't understand the option when used.
> In addition, the man pages and usage statements don't document these
> options to determine the verson number.
> Below is what I've been able to determine so far for -V, -v, --version
> -h, --help options. In most cases, the -v option isn't recognized, the
> others are to some extent.
> /usr/bin/822-date no version
> /usr/bin/dpkg --version
> /usr/bin/dpkg-buildpackage no version, has a -v<version> option though
Careful! That's the version of the package you are BUILDING.
> /usr/bin/dpkg-deb --version
> /usr/bin/dpkg-distaddfile -h
> /usr/bin/dpkg-genchanges no version
> /usr/bin/dpkg-gencontrol -h
> /usr/bin/dpkg-name -v , --version
> /usr/bin/dpkg-parsechangelog -h but gives "unknown option err msg"
> /usr/bin/dpkg-scanpackages none
> /usr/bin/dpkg-shlibdeps -h works but usage doesn't mention -h
> /usr/bin/dpkg-source -h
> /usr/bin/dpkg-split --version
> /usr/bin/dselect --version
> /usr/bin/install-info --version
> /usr/sbin/cleanup-info --version
> /usr/sbin/dpkg-divert --version
> /usr/sbin/start-stop-daemon -v,--version,--help as v0.4.1 1/19/97
> this is somebody elses s/w used here.
> However, it should also have dpkg
> version 220.127.116.11 appended since one
> doesn't know where or what installed it.
> /usr/sbin/update-alternatives --version, --help
> /usr/sbin/update-rc.d none
> /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/debian-changelog-mode.el not applicable??
> Note: These subdirectories are created for temporary storage ???
Temporary storage for increasingly obsolete methods.
> /usr/etc/alternatives why is this needed. seems to be
> duplicate of /usr/com/dpkg. It
> would be nice to have all dpkg
> processing in one directory area.
No, it is not a duplicate. The other one gets populated with text
files. This one gets populated with symlinks.
> Note: These debian pkg tools and config stuff installed.
> Need version information by the -v, -V, --version or
> just put it in the header information.
> Note: These libraries are installed
> libdpkg.so -> libdpkg.so.0.0.0
> libdpkg.so.0 -> libdpkg.so.0.0.0 shouldn't this be 18.104.22.168 and
> not 0's
Don't confuse a soname (which is a binary interface number) with a
source version number.
| Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University |
| email@example.com | | firstname.lastname@example.org |