On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 15:19:32 +0200 Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> wrote: >On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 01:14:39PM +0100, Andreas Ronnquist wrote: >> Hi >> >> I am packaging a game (opensurge), which has a repository on github. >> My problem is that it is dependent on another package (surgescript, a >> scripting language for it), which also has it's own tarball and >> repository on github. >> >> Surgescript is distributed as a library (statically built). >> >> Do you think it's reasonable to repackage this into one tarball, and >> use that as upstream, statically linking the surgescript library? >> >> To me this looks like the best idea, but I am very much open for >> suggestions. >> >> Also, git-buildpackage isn't equipped for dual orig tarball yet, >> right? > >You could use components: keep the opensurge source in its own tarball, >opensurge_X.Y.Z.orig.tar.xz, and put the surgescript source into its >own tarball, opensurge-X.Y.Z.orig-surgescript.tar.xz; this will make >dpkg-source (and everything that uses dpkg-source) extract the >surgescript tarball into a surgescript/ directory of the extracted >opensurge source. FTR, gbp-import-orig supports this if you pass one or >more --component options specifying the additional tarballs. > >This is the way I would do it - no need to modify the original tarball, >no need to modify the additional tarball, just maybe make some small >changes to the build process because things are in a slightly different >directory tree structure. > That indeed looks like a much better idea than repackaging tarballs. Many thanks for the tip! /Andreas gusnan@debian.org mailinglists@gusnan.se
Attachment:
pgpm6dHex0ydi.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur