Re: Plans for post-sarge: 1. Packaging internals
Hi,
First, sorry for the delay. Be sure however that, had I had a strong
opposition to the changes you proposed, I would have told your before to
avoid letting you waste your time.
Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> wrote:
> 1. introduce eperl
>
> TEXMFD_UCF="<:=$TEXMF_PARTS:>"
>
> According to the rule
>
> % :: %.in common.variables_update $(eperlfiles)
> eperl -P -o $@ $<
>
> the eperl statement between <:...:> will be replaced. All files will
> include debian/variables, were we write
>
> <:$TEXMF_PARTS="05TeXMF 15Plain 45TeXinputs 55Fonts 65BibTeX 75DviPS 85Misc 95NonPath":>
>
> And can reuse the list everywhere. So this gives, in the final
> generated postinst:
>
> TEXMFD_UCF="05TeXMF 15Plain 45TeXinputs 55Fonts 65BibTeX 75DviPS 85Misc 95NonPath"
>
OK, looks useful. Other possibilities include the use of m4 but
presumably, Perl is easier (if you know it) and more powerful. Moreover,
perl is essential while m4 is not. All I wish (FWIW) is that you don't
get to write unreadable Perl code throughout the teTeX packages, but the
example you cited is of course perfectly OK, since it is only a variable
expansion.
> 2. Once we've done that, I'd suggest to create an additional CVS tree
> besides tetex-bin and tetex-base, called tetex-common or the like. It
> would be checked out in a directory somewhere above the package build
> directory, and in Debian rules one target would check if it exists
> and update a common.variables file (and possible more files, see
> below) to the build tree. This way, things can be easily kept in sync
> between the two closely related source packages.
>
> Developers would usually have that tree, while ordinary users can
> still build the package without it (I have yet implemented this).
I suppose that the merge (tetex-common "copied" into tetex-base or
tetex-bin) happens in the clean rule of debian/rules, so that the
.diff.gz of the to-be-generated source package contains the updated
files, ensuring the package's reproducibility.
> 3. Support for sarge users
>
> I think we should not just leave the problem to the users or
> individual backporters. Rather we should try to keep our packages
> compatible with sarge. I suggest that we keep a "debian/sarge/"
> subdirectory with appropriate patches for the packaging scripts, and
> a sarge target in debian/rules that applies those patches (and a sid
> target that reverts them), including a new debian/changelog and an
> according version number.
Sounds nice!
> 4. Moving configuration stuff to tetex-base
I cannot really comment on this because I don't know the precise
handling of every config file in teTeX as you do. I understand why you
want to move the files and I think you know better whether each file can
be moved safely, and easily.
> I'm awaiting your protest,
No protest from me. :-P
Regards,
--
Florent
Reply to: