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

opkg-buildpackage versus svn-buildpackage



Hi,

I recently did some experiments with svn-buildpackage. As far as I can
see, svn-buildpackage has all the functionality of opkg-buildpackage
(besides automatic fetching the upstream tar ball by apt-get source). It
is better documented, has far more features, and is certainly better
maintained than out hand-knit opkg-buildpackage. Furthermore, it
uses the features of svn, like tagging of released versions.

Svn-buildpackage has a "mergeWithUpstream" mode, which allows us
to only keep the debian directory under svn control, and to have
the original tarball at one dedicated location (wich of course
might as well be under svn).

The default repository layout of svn-buildpackage is different
from ours. This is not a problem since the deafault can be
overwritten.

For a start I have made the package "tuareg-mode" now
svn-buildpackage compatible. To do so I did three changes:

- place the orig tar ball outside of trunk. This is necessary
  since, in merge mode, svn-buildpackage merges the contents
  of the trunk directory into the upstream source. 

- enable mergeWithUpstream mode by

  cd pkg-ocaml-maint/trunk/packages/tuareg-mode/trunk
  svn propset mergeWithUpstream 1 debian

- place a file in the debian directory which contains the locations
  of various directories, since these are different from the default
  (see file debian/svn-deblayout of the tuareg-mode package). This file
  is not exported into the source package when building the
  package.

If you do an "svn update" of your working copy of the
packages/tuarge-mode you should be set. Now, to compile the
package, just do an

svn-buildpackage -rfakeroot -uc -us

See the doc for more options. For instance, if you do

svn-buildpackage --svn-tag -rfakeroot -uc -us

then a tag for the current version in created, and the changelog is
prepared for the next version.

What do you think of using svn-buildpackaeg in the future?

-Ralf.
-- 



Reply to: