Re: Non-Debian packaging practice
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Justin Pryzby <justinpryzby@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 10:35:22PM -0000, StealthMonger wrote:
> > Is there a document describing software packaging good practices for
> > general use, not specific to Debian, preferably in electronic form?
> I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean.
Sorry the question was not clear.
> > Debian discourages creating Debian-native packages: "This type of
> > packaging is only appropriate for the debian-specific packages, which
> > will never be useful in another distribution." [1] But creating it
> > for other distributions requires some knowledge of what those other
> > distributions expect of a package.
> Of course Debian doesn't attempt to describe with other distros
> expect. Since you're talking about stuff that will apparently be used
> in other distros, you want a non native package anyway, right?
Right. That's the point. The Debian "maint-guide" [1] is geared to
deriving a Debian package from a pre-existing "upstream" package.
Further, the quote above implies that if one is writing a new package
from scratch, it's better to write it for general distribution and
then convert it to a Debian package.
But that requires knowledge of how to write a package for general
distribution. Hence the question.
Here's an example of the issues that come up. Is it good practice
outside of Debian for a package to always have a make file, even if
the package contains no compilable code, only scripts to install? Or
is a simple install script acceptable?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQFEEnloDkU5rhlDCl4RAgIJAJ4jHOdqDRslHYPat6TZz4KuRbCZgQCeOd90
vDB8EiHObfi/YTPujPH0f5A=
=pdFf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: