Re: building binary-only package with different name?
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:58:07AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Peter van Rossum wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 11:45:08AM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > But anyway, that's not the problem. I don't need the binary package to
> > work both on potato and on woody - I just want an easy way to create two
> > different versions of the binary package, one that works on potato
> > and one that works on woody.
>
> compile one on woody for woody
> compile one on potato for potato.
>
> That /is/ the easy way for your run of the mill binary package.
Yes, of course, and that is what I did. But the actual question was:
how do I get dpkg-buildpackage to give the potato version a different
*name*? Just renaming the files gives problems with the signature on
the .changes/.dsc files.
I tried `dpkg-buildpackage -b -apotato_i386 -rfakeroot' on potato after
I first build the package with `dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot' on woody.
Potato may not be a different architecture than woody, but it was the
closest thing I could find. This didn't work though - the package wasn't
build at all. I suspect dpkg-buildpackage checks if the architecture is
something valid and refuses to do anything if it is something unknown
like `potato' :-(.
Peter
Reply to: