Re: [Q] source package building
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Aaron> Close, but not quite. I would like 'make install' or similar
> Aaron> to build the programs, configuration files, pre/postinst
> Aaron> scripts, and then install them, _without_ actually building a
> Aaron> .deb binary package file, but still modifying dpkg's view of
> Aaron> what is installed.
> This is a bad idea. Only one entity should mangle the package
> management system's understanding of what is installed on the system,
> and that should be the package management system itself. Building
> package management tools into each and every debian/rules file is a
> recipe for disaster.
I wasn't suggesting that each package do this by itself, but rather
have (a modified) dpkg, or another program of the package management
system be able to understand the normal conventions for source packages
(i.e the debian/tmp/ tree and debian/control etc) and use those
files directly to install, rather than making a .deb out of them, and
then unpacking the .deb. I suppose this would probably require more
codification of how the source packages build the binary packages.
I can certainly understand the desire to have only dpkg
modify the package management stuff, and to in general keep the tools
simple and modular. I would argue that that is not currently the case
for the dpkg system though. (not to offend any of the developers).
It seems that the dpkg tools are quite complicated and interact in many
strange ways. I wish they could be simplified, but I doubt this is
doable without severely breaking backwards compatibility. Hmm.
This sounds like I am whining... I really do appreciate the efforts
that people have put into debian, and I do think the dpkg system does
work okay. I just suppose my view of how the software installation should go
is not quite the same as the dpkg one, although both ``work''.
Thanks to all who tried to answer my questions.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .