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

Trying to build debs of Enlightenment(current) for wheezy



Subject says it all - I've been working on this a bit, and I have a few
problems - I hope these aren't too newbie of questions.

Presently I'm working on EFL, Enlightenment Foundation Library, which
is the lion's share of the work in terms of dependencies.


1. I have a dependency on liborc, that needs to be newer than the
version in the main wheezy repo. I was planning on requiring users to
use backports, which has a suitable version. So I am testing my deb
on a clean virtual machine to which I have added backports entries to
sources.list. But when I install my efl .deb via dpkg -i, apt-get -f
install doesn't know how to use the backports version or doesn't offer
it as a choice. If I install the deb and then run aptitude, aptitude
does have upgrading the liborc in its proposed actions. Is this
something I need to worry about or is it going to work out OK when the
efl is installed from a repo instead of via dpkg ?


2. I tweaked the .install files in the debian directory to get the
desired files installed. so for the library runtime I have

usr/lib/*
usr/bin/*

and for the development version I have 

usr/include/*
usr/lib/pkgconfig/*
/usr/share/*

The problem is that both packages end up having the pkgconfig/*
files, which I can work around with --force-overwrite but that is not a
clean solution. Is there a way to exclude the pkgconfig files from the
runtime deb?

3. The liborc upgrade via aptitude upgrades tons of stuff,
including the kernel, I guess from backports. How can I 
can get that to work without such drastic impact on the user?




Finally, 
I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask these questions. If that
is the case please direct me to the right place. Also I know there are
people working on packaging enlightenment for the project, I am just
trying to do this out of my own curiousity.

Thanks in advance,

John Holland

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: