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

Re: My first packages -- some questions.

>>"Kirk" == Kirk Hilliard <kirk@ghoti.com> writes:

Kirk> 0. BTW, I built my packages in what I assume is the standard
Kirk> way.  I ran deb-make, edited the files in debian/ and ran build.
Kirk> Should I be doing something differently?  I am not quite
Kirk> comfortable with this level of automation, since I don't know
Kirk> what it all does yet.

	You and me both. I never have used debmake/deb-helper and
 friends; I checked them out as they came out, and have made a
 persona; decision not to use them.

	My preferred method is to look at other debian/rules files and
 program by example; it has a slightly steeper learning curve, I
 guess, but at least I understad what is going on.

	I'll be willing to mail you a tar file of several debian/rules
 files for perusal.

Kirk> 1. Where does buildinfo.Debian come from, and does it really
Kirk> belong?

	The debian/rules file is responsible for creating it.

Kirk> OK, I assume that build (or dpkg-buildpackage or debstd or
Kirk> whatever) makes it, but I can't find this file mentioned in any
Kirk> of the documentation.  If it is something that we are encouraged
Kirk> to include in the .deb, then why isn't it mentioned in the
Kirk> Policy or Packaging manual?

	Cause it is not standard. I think some helper package or the
 other decided to create this.

Kirk> It lists the version of packages containing various development
Kirk> tools.  But for my packages makeinfo is an important tool, and
Kirk> tetex-bin is not listed in buildinfo.Debian.  Should I do
Kirk> something to include it?

	Buildinfo is just a help for diagnostic puposes. I don't think
 it has changed drastically in years, knowing the version on
 some users machine is unlikely to be of use.

Kirk> 2. Do I need to do something special because I use makeinfo to
Kirk> build the packages?

	I don't, genrally. When we have source dependencies, this may
 be more of an issue.

Kirk> makeinfo is from tetex-bin which is a "Standard" package.  Might
Kirk> it not be considered a standard development tool, and do I need
Kirk> to document its use somewhere?

	Not until we get source dependencies.

Kirk> 3. Why doesn't debstd gzip README.debian?
Kirk> Well, why doesn't debstd gzip README.debian?  It does gzip the
Kirk> documentation mentioned on the "debstd" line of the debian/rules
Kirk> file.

	I do not have debmake on my machine, so I do not know.

Kirk> 4. Should I edit the README to remove build information?

Kirk> Section 5.3 "Additional documentation" of the policy manual
Kirk> says:

Kirk> It is often a good idea to put text information files (READMEs,
Kirk> changelogs, and so forth) that come with the source package in
Kirk> /usr/doc/package in the binary package. However, you don't need
Kirk> to install the instructions for building and installing the
Kirk> package, of course!

Kirk> If the source package includes a README which contains some
Kirk> useful information, but which mostly talks about the build
Kirk> process, should I include it in its entirety, or may I edit out
Kirk> the build instructions?


Kirk> 6. Why does `dpkg -I *.deb' say "new debian package"?

	As opposed to truly ancient debian package format ;-)

Kirk> 7. Why do I get *_i386.changes when Architecture = all?

	Ignore this, dpkg has more serious bugs than just this one.

Kirk> 8. Why is build complaining about "no utmp entry available"?

	Ignore this, dpkg has more serious bugs than just this one.

 Trust no future howe'er pleasant! Let the dead past bury its dead!
 Act--act in the living present! Heart within and God o'erhead!  --
Manoj Srivastava  <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

Reply to: