Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl> writes: > On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 08:18:55AM -0400, Erik Bourget wrote: >> Fabian Fagerholm <fabbe@paniq.net> writes: >> This is perhaps the most difficult thing to understand about Debian >> packaging. It's implied in several places, and it's briefly spelt out in >> some other places, but in general, you are referred to "examples" which >> vary as much as the packages in the Debian archive. > > Maybe it's an idea to improve the available documents? (thinking NM > guide) This is an EXCELLENT idea, I was totally clueless until I found this list and the policy/NMG were frustratingly almost helpful. On a related note, here is the rules file that I made after cutting up dh_make's "Multiple Binary" option. I think that it's a lot clearer when there is not necessarily arch and indep versions (my packages are a perl program and a shell-script wrapper to run it via daemontools, so this didn't really fit the mold). Something like this should possibly be added to dh_make, as multiple binary != arch and indep always, especially with big python, perl, java, etc programs. What you do is just specify the packages you are making in BUILD_PACKAGES, INSTALL_PACKAGES, and BINARY_PACKAGES (I'm sure that make has loops but I don't know how to do them, you could turn this into one variable pretty easily) and it will Just Go, calling make install-$(PACKAGENAME) with the appropriate DESTDIR for each package. For reference, my packages were called "ossadmin" and "ossadmin-run", I left these in the rules file. IOW: Here's another 'example'. 8D~
Attachment:
rules
Description: debian/rules makefile for multiple binary package