Bug#802848: RFS: gnome-twitch/0.1.0-1 [ITP]
Hi,
(let me say, based on your answers I have difficulties in understanding how possibly
your first package can be so good :) )
>I installed into debian/package because "man dh_auto_install" told me
>that "[...]the files are installed into debian/package/ if there is only
>one binary package. In the multiple binary package case, the files are
>instead installed into debian/tmp/ [...]".
>Although there is no reason given why it should be debian/package in one
>case and debian/tmp in the other. What's the difference?
well, first there is a dh_auto_install step, where everything is moved to debian/tmp
(via DESTDIR), and then a dh_install where packages are split
(you mention an exception of the rule, and I agree with you on that point)
>I overrode dh_auto_install because that is where "normally" (when using
>autotools for example) the "make install" stage of the process is
>executed, right?
true
>And the "ninja install" command would be my equivalent of that "make
>install".
>After that, I thought, dh_install could be used to install files that
>were not picked up by the call to make (or ninja in my case).
true
>If that is not the case, what difference does overriding dh_install make
>in contrast to overriding dh_auto_install? Both seem to produce a
>working package for me.
actually you are completely right, but I guess is a matter of taste :)
Let me assume in the future you will like to split the package, that way
I guess you might just tweak the dh_install and nothing more
(but as soon as there is no automatic install by running "make install"
they are both equivalent)
>Also, the command you proposed would also install into
>debian/gnome-twitch, but at the top you said I should be installing into
>debian/tmp? I'm a little confused ;)
I guess the politically correct way is:
install in dh_auto_install everything into debian/tmp, and add an .install file
to make sure files are moved into dh_install.
that way a future package split will be easier
(this is how I would do it, but if you don't want to do I can live happy to)
>While writing an answer to this, I just realized that make also takes
>the -C option, I didn't know that before.
>So yes, that would probably be a good idea, I'll do that.
let me know whenever you have something to look at :)
(the above discussion is obviously not a showstopper, because I guess it is just a matter of
knowing how your package will evolve)
cheers,
G.
Reply to: