Re: An alternative to deb-make Re: deb-make
Galen Hazelwood <galenh@micron.net>:
> 3) Single-binary packages build in debian/tmp, and multi-binary
> packages build in debian/tmp-foo, debian/tmp-bar, etc. By keeping
> this consistant between packages, we can make the behavior of other
> tools smarter.
You can already do this of course, though it's not as much encouraged
as perhaps it ought to be.
> 4) dpkg-gencontrol be altered to reflect these changes; when called
> without arguments in a single binary package, its behavior should
> remain the same (build control file in debian/tmp/DEBIAN). In multi-
> binary packages, it should generate control files for each binary in
> debian/tmp-[binaryname]/DEBIAN. One call does it all.
Any changes to dpkg-gencontrol &c should be backward-compatible.
Perhaps a `-M<packagename>' option which means `this is a multi-binary
package, and I'm doing package <packagename>, and I want you to set
the default directories and files accordingly' ?
> 5) dpkg-shlibdeps actually dosen't need changing, really...it's current
> behavior is probably correct. I can't think of any "magical" way it
> can determine what binary any given executable belongs to, so -d
> should still be used. Another possibility is creating different
> shlibdeps files in subdirectories of debian, with a new command line
> flag. I don't see that as much of a gain, though.
I think we ought not to fiddle with this until it's better understood.
I don't think this has much to do with any future deb-make-a-like.
Ian.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: