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

Re: Aw: Re: [MoM] Problem reproducing bug in ProbABEL package



Hi Steffen, Andreas,

Thanks for your views on Steffen's solution and my taking it up. As you
may have seen in the commits I went for Andreas' way (even before I read
Andreas' reply, actually). Using chmod before dh_install didn't work,
Lintian told me that extIDS.pl wasn't executable. I'm not sure why this
is, maybe because of a similar reason as why automake doesn't install
'data files' with 755 permissions.

Anyway, I used the suggested bowtie example rule and it works ok on my
machines. It turned out to be much simpler than I expected. And
definitely 'cleaner'/'nicer'.

I'll update the d/changelog to prepare for probabel_0.4.1-2.


Thanks for your help and insights.

Lennart.

On 01-01-14 23:07, "Steffen Möller" wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> 
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 08:44:20PM +0100, L.C. Karssen wrote:
>>>> The easiest fix coming to my mind is possibly to
>>>>   chmod src/extIDS.pl
>>>> before dh_install is invoked.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed, nice and simple.
>>
>> I agree that this is nice and simple but I personally would not do it
>> in this cheap way:
>>
>>   1. It is changing the upstream source tree which I would generally
>>      avoid (even in those slight cases)
> 
> This is an excellent point. A single chmod on the source tree basically
> interferes with what we manage with git. With me mostly using svn-buildpackage,
> where we store the debian folder only, this would have been acceptable.
> To not infer with the upstream sources, we use the quilt patch system.
> However, this also changes the sources - it just also unchanges them.
> So, it is not the change of the source tree itself that cumbersome. To save
> my suggestion, you would undo the chmod after running dh_install, as in
> 
> override_dh_install:
>    chmod +x src/whatever.pl
>    dh_install
>    chmod -x src/whatever.pl
> 
> Hm. I admit, not so cute, but idempotent.
> 
>>   2. You need to remind this change for new upstream versions (except
>>      you can convince upstream to do it in their source distribution)
> 
> Er, no, this is not how it was meant. The chmod would have been part of
> debian/rules, so it would have been fine with updates.
> 
>> I'll leave it to you what solution you prefer - just want to make sure
>> you understand its consequences.
> 
> Same here :)
> 
> Steffen 
> 
> 

-- 
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
L.C. Karssen
Utrecht
The Netherlands

lennart@karssen.org
http://blog.karssen.org
GPG key ID: A88F554A
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: