Re: Plans for post-sarge: 1. Packaging internals
Florent Rougon <f.rougon@free.fr> wrote:
> 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.
Since I don't know Perl too well, I guess I won't produce unreadable
code. Currently, I only use variable assignments to constants or to file
contents. Maybe later some regexps will be used to select parts of a
filecontent (e.g. the version number from the changelog).
>> 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.
That's a good point, thank you.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: