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

Re: Separating packages.

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

Reply to: