Re: RFC: checkinstall - installation tracker
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: RFC: checkinstall - installation tracker
- From: Felipe Sateler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:40:14 -0400
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060324045357.GA7405@andromeda>
Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Your first Closes entry isn't terminated with a closing/right
> parenthesis; not that it really matters.
> You need to include the years of copyright (if available).
Put copyright 2002-2006
> Your rules file is set up as if you produced both -arch and -indep
> packages, but that isn't the case. In particular, you don't need
> DH_OPTIONS at all.
That must be because originally I was producing 2 packages. Deleted the
> "useless use of cat" in the install target; you should probably just
> rely on the debhelper tools to do everything like:
> creating links
> compressing files
> creating directories
> installing files
Fixed manpage installation. However, I can't use dh_installdocs, because
using it on installwatch's documentation would overwrite the checkinstall
files. I would have to rename the files in the source (the same reason
dh_install doesn't help).
> You have sed commands, which aren't necessarily bad, but you could
> probably just include the changes in the .diff.gz.
Some are actually needed (installwatch has a hack to detect if it has been
installed). I used sed scripts because I didn't want to modify the original
source files (specially on the configuration file). Deleted them, and
modified the source.
> binary depends on build and install, but install already depends on
> build. I don't know why the template is like this; I'm filing a bug
> Your modified makefile might use install -s to install the library,
> rather than cp.
> BTW, did you ever figure out why dpkg wasn't allowing you to directly
> install the new package?
No. However, I've been playing a bit, and dpkg -B causes the package to
Reuploaded the package.