Re: What is the process for creating/uploading new packages?
2010/12/22 Joachim Breitner <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> Am Mittwoch, den 22.12.2010, 00:29 +0300 schrieb Eugene Kirpichov:
>> 2010/12/22 Joachim Breitner <email@example.com>:
>> > Note that maintaining Debian packages is a bit more work than creating a
>> > Cabal package, because of all the processes around it and guidelines and
>> > stuff. If that sounds more interesting than scary: You are welcome!
>> Scary but I see no other way to give my apps any serious adoption
>> outside the haskell community :)
> Well, the other way is to hope that a Debian developer picks it up. I
> might if the list of currently missing dependencies is not too long,
> does not contain very weird or untrustworthy stuff and I find the
> time... might take a week or two till I have that.
Then I'll first try to do it myself :)
>> > A good start may be the packaging of other haskell programs, e.g.
>> > http://darcs.debian.org/pkg-haskell/bluetile/ or
>> > http://darcs.debian.org/pkg-haskell/alex/ or, well, pick any from
>> > http://pkg-haskell.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/pet.cgi
>> > These repositories contain just the Debian repository of the packaging,
>> > so extract it in your source directory.
>> Yeah, I've already based my package on this. Is it supposed to build
>> with a single "debuild (no arguments)" command? Didn't work for me
>> (will ask more questions tomorrow), I had to do "debuild -T
>> install/timeplot" and alike (which of course didn't work because of
>> all the unpackaged dependencies)
> It should definitely build by running "debuild -uc -us".
>> >> > There are also quite a number of dependencies not in Debian yet, which
>> >> > would have to be packaged.
>> >> Do you mean and we must have all haskell dependencies of the packages
>> >> also packaged? Is it because the package has to be buildable from
>> >> source, or is that also necessary for binary builds?
>> > Both: All our package have to be buildable using stuff in Debian by our
>> > users; and because we auto-build packages for many architectures (and
>> > for other reasons, such as security support), they need to be buildable
>> > by our auto-builders. So yes, each and every dependency has to be
>> > packaged in Debian.
>> > It’d be a help already if you could identify the set of packages
>> > required, but not yet in Debian. On
>> > http://people.debian.org/~nomeata/hackagevsdebian.html
>> > you can see which packages are in Debian already.
>> OK, I see.
>> What if I have packaged a new library - how do I upload it? Am I
>> required to use the debian.haskell.org darcs repo, etc?
>> Also, I didn't quite understand what's up with the "source/format =
>> 3.0 (quilt)" stuff - debuilds didn't work with it, complaining about
>> absence of an .orig.tar file, I had to change to 3.0 (native) and
>> ignore some warnings..
> hmm, about the .orig.tar stuff I suggest you read
> http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/... :-)
>> Generally, if I upload my "debianization" of a package somewhere, is
>> it reasonable to expect that someone will criticize and correct me? :)
> Yes. For a start you can use the infrastructure in place at
Thanks, I will.
Do you mean that I should upload my packaging attempts there and
debian-haskell@ will then somehow take over with them and integrate
them into its process and infrastructure?
> BTW, do you use Debian or Ubuntu yourself as a user?
Yes, to an extent. I've used them for several years but currently I'm
on Windows, though I have a pet Ubuntu VM where I do some things,
incl. building this package :)
> Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
> Debian Developer
> firstname.lastname@example.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
> JID: email@example.com | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Senior Software Engineer,
Grid Dynamics http://www.griddynamics.com/