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
emdebian.
> 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.
Greets,
Philippe
| 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: