> Jon Dowland wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 05:33:20PM +0200, Laurent Bigonville wrote: > >> This ruby gem is needed by FPM (see my ITP[0]). > > > >Hi Laurent, thanks for the clarification â?? to ask a related > >question. What's the worth of FPM on Debian? Especially given the > >issues that Wouter has raised in the bug¹ > > > >¹ http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=22;bug=688896 > > Quite, I'm concerned on that front too. Do we want to encourage or > make it easier for people to use tools that don't care about our > packaging policies?
I would confess that I'm mainly using it to create RPM's at work. For some users it's easier (and faster) to use fpm than starting to dig into a specfile or a debian package. We already have checkinstall in the archive. The main difference here with checkinstall is that fpm allows to package easily a complete tree, I think that checkinstall requires some kind of 'make install' as it's diverting some syscalls to track which files are installed. I know nothing about the quality/policy compliance of the .deb generated by checkinstall. I've opened a bug on the upstream bug tracker about using dpkg instead of ar/tar directly. Cheers Laurent Bigonville -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130411115035.3eca8...@soldur.bigon.be