Re: Lying to dpkg?

[cjw44@cam.ac.uk (Colin Watson)]

phoenix@directiondesigns.com (Phoenix Amon) wrote:
>Like you said, I could just avoid using it entirely... but I like it. It's a
>big time saver. I'd just like to see it get a bit more flexible. Finding ways
>to work around the system seems to be the topic of a lot of posts around here,
>and it shouldn't have to be.

I'd go with one of the ways you suggested in passing in your earlier
post; use Debianized source.

If you install dpkg-dev and devscripts, it's almost trivial (once you
know how) to build a package from source; just do the following:

  * apt-get source package-name;
  * change directory into the top-level source directory that will have
    been created;
  * modify whatever you want (noting that debian/rules is the
    main makefile, which calls ./configure and make, so quite often you
    just need to tweak that a little);
  * debuild -m'your name <your e-mail address>' (still in the top-level
    source directory).

This will spit out a .deb in the parent directory of the top-level
source directory, which you can then proceed to install with 'dpkg -i'.
(You might need to set up gpg first; if you don't it'll probably just
complain a little about not finding it but the .deb should still be OK.)

Almost any time I need to build something from source I do it this way.
You get the bonus that not only does everything go into the standard
Debian locations but also all your dependencies get sorted out cleanly.
Of course, if it's something that was never a Debian package to start
with then you can just build it from upstream source as usual and drop
it into /usr/local, and because nothing will depend on it it shouldn't
cause any problems.

It takes a while to find your way around, but the system *is* actually
flexible enough that working within it is sometimes a lot easier than
trying to work around it.

-- 
Colin Watson                                           [cjw44@cam.ac.uk]