Re: Why?: Two hello- packages
>
> Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 14:16:39 CDT
> To: Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org>, debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
> From: Bolan Meek <Bolan.Meek@wcom.com>
> Subject: Why?: Two hello- packages
>
> understanding as to exactly how a *.diff.gz is applied
> to the corresponding *.orig.tar.gz.
put the three files (the .oirig.tar./gz, the .diff.gz and the .dsc)
in a dir by themselves (I like ~/c/<pkgname>), then
dpkg-source -x *.dsc
because dpkg-source understands the source pkging format and will
continue to do so as they evolve.
> So to my question: why are there two different names
> for the hello package files, when, apparently, there is
> only a version difference:
>
> 5095 hello-debhelper_1.3-17.diff.gz
> 643 hello-debhelper_1.3-17.dsc
> 87701 hello-debhelper_1.3.orig.tar.gz
> 4946 hello_1.3-16.diff.gz
> 605 hello_1.3-16.dsc
> 87701 hello_1.3.orig.tar.gz
The latter three are the hello example using raw packaging techniques;
the first three are the same example packaged using debhelper, both of
which you should be aware of as a developer.
Debhelper is a fairly good debian packaging helper which comes as a fairly
finely-grained set of little tools (each with its own man page) that are
used together to automate the building of a package.
When policy changes, the appropriate debhelper tool gets updated so as
to keep packages in line with policy. To make sure your package is fully
conformant, check it with lintian.
To learn more about debhelper, peruse the hello-debhelper sources and
read the man page of each dh_* invocation you come across to see what
it does.
> BTW, I suspect I'll find my answers on patching
> by rereading the _Debian_Packaging_Manual_. But
Yes, and by looking thru the source and by reading docs on every debian
tool you see there and by doing other research.
> if any mentoring elder developer feels abject pity
> on a poor clue-challenged newbie wannabe,
> and deigns to drop me a bone, that'll be
> good, too :!
Well, all I'm doing here is addressing your questions by moving you
approx. one step closer to the solution in each case. It might also
be worth other new packager's time to read this and be sufficiently
influenced to take a look at the source of the hello packages as well
as to begin looking at documentation on the individual pieces used
to automate package building.
Doing so is advantageous to debian because new maintainers might
come up with better first packages that way. A second reminder:
check your completed packages using lintian and by trying all
combinations of installing and removing them.
> In other matters, in reading the docs with xmailtool,
> I find that the authors are not actively maintaining
> the source, and do not find any site mentioning
> anyone else who is, so I've assayed to also become
> the upstream maintainer, and have sent a notice
> of intent to the authors, at the last known email
> address, and have started a page at
> http://www.koyote.com/users/bolan/xmailtool .
> Is this correct method? Or "way" too presumptious,
> having skipped some proper steps?
If you are the upstream maintainer for xmailtool, packaging it for
debian ought to be easier for you.
-Jim
---
Jim Lynch Finger for pgp key
as Laney College CIS admin: jim@laney.edu http://www.laney.edu/~jim/
as Debian developer: jwl@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~jwl/
Reply to: