Re: (better explaining) Re: Hi! I need faqs and tutorials for make gcc*.deb's
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 10:44:40PM -0300, Dani wrote:
> Hi! Thank's for your ultra quickly response:-)
> For now, I have more one question: I need learn about
> * "Multiple"-binary * in sense of maint-guide. (from one [or two:]
> souce tarball,
> to many binaries.deb)
> The maint-guide teaching me about "single"-binary but nothing
> about "multiple" ...
> My question is : where I find docs, tutorials, etc about use
> of dh_make for making multiple binaries ?
dh_make is just a template, and the difference between what it outputs
for "single binary" is very similar to what it outputs for "multiple
The difference is entirely within ./debian/control. Check the policy
manual for the definition of that file. In short, the first entry
describes the "source" package, and each successive entry describes a
binary package which is built from that source package.
./debian/rules might also be a bit different (in the argument to
Indeed, gcc will be a complicated beast to package for a personal
project. You might also refer to some OTHER existing packages, which
creates multiple binary packages, as a reference. A list of 200
candidates is given by:
apt-cache search data |grep -- -data
openssh and gaim also come to mind. (Check the "binary packages"
section of pacakges.qa.d.o).
> 2005/7/9, Matthew Palmer <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 02:17:01AM -0300, Dani wrote:
> > > hi! my system is a Debian Testing. I use a Athlon Xp1.7 (x86) and
> > > I already installed the tools give in "maint-guide". I tried hard _but_ *all*
> > > tutorials that I encounter use this estructure:
> > >
> > > # apt-get source gcc-X.Y
> > > # cd gcc-X.Y
> > > # dpkg-buildpackage ( or debuild )
> > > ...
> > >
> > > But this is _not_ what I need. my need is take a gcc from gcc.gnu.org
> > > and make a (more or less) complete debianization and of course in a
> > > gcc that NOT yet packaged for Debian. for now, this is for my personal use.
> > Your best bet is *probably* going to be to port the existing packaging
> > scripts for gcc to the version of gcc you want to build. That may or may
> > not be simple (gcc is a pretty complex package), but it's the standard
> > method of making packages of new versions of existing packages.
> > - Matt
> > BodyID:1139165.2.n.logpart (stored separately)
> "There are many plans in the Human heart, But
> is the Lord's Purpose that prevails"
> 's Dani:-)