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

Re: some thoughts (scratchbox, emdebian/rules)

Hi Justin, 
Quoting Justin Cormack <justin@street-vision.com>: 
> I was thinking about this earlier today actually, and there are a couple 
> of issues: 
> 1. (fairly trivial) is it emdebian/rules or just an emdebian-build 
> target in the standard rules file? 
It was just a random idea. The emdebian-build rule/target was already 
mentioned as an option. But I thought that maybe by adding a new rules file 
designed for emdebian could make it easier to maintain the different angles. 
Avoiding big and complex structures. Especially when cross-compiling issues 
have to be corrected. Of course we could also call a seperate rules file for 
> 2. we have to change the control file too (to change packages built and 
> build deps), so do we add an emdebian/control or debian/emdebian-control 
> file? Otherwise we are still going to have to patch original sources 
>From the new emdebian/rules file this file could easily be changed with sed or 
so. Or easily changed in the emdebian target in the adapted debian/rules file. 
> 3. if you do either of these, you wont be able to build packages from 
> standard source debs easily (because the emdebian dpkg will be looking 
> for the emdebian files). One of the nice things about uwoody is being 
> able to just grab standard package sources and build them. So in the 
> short term it might just be easier to maintain a set of patches against 
> normal debian. Changing from one to the other wouldnt be a lot of work 
> though, and could easily be automated. 
When using a different rules file this is indeed the case. I wonder if you did 
cross-compile uwoody. Because I encountered several problems when 
cross-compiling normal debian packages even with glibc. Therefore I changed 
some things in dpkg-cross and added in the same time support for multiple 
libraries, and removing . (see www.mind.be/stag if you want to know more what 
I did.) 
> I dont think these are very important though. I dont think you need to 
> change much more than control and some configure options in rules for 
> many packages, as it should be easy to make all the debhelpers that 
> install documentation do nothing instead so they dont have to be 
> commented out (not sure how many packages dont use debhelper). 
It is also a good idea you have here. Changing the debhelper scripts to avoid 
installing documentation when giving specific options. I'll keep that in mind. 
| Philippe De Swert -GNU/linux - uClinux freak-     
| Stag developer http://www.mind.be/stag     
| Please do not send me documents in a closed format. (*.doc,*.xls,*.ppt)   
| Use the open alternatives. (*.pdf,*.ps,*.html,*.txt)   
| Why? http://pallieter.is-a-geek.org:7832/~johan/word/english/   

Gestuurd via het webmailsysteem van het De Nayer Instituut: www.denayer.be

Reply to: