Re: Issue with installing manually created Debian archive with APT
> why are you attempting to create the .deb yourself, instead of using Debian > tooling. Can't you simply build dpkg under Arch and try to use it directly? I *can* in fact already do that, as dpkg is already packaged and inside Arch Linux's repositories [1]. The reason I'm wanting to do it manually is that I'm appearing to get quite a bit of a speed gain from doing so. On relatively tiny packages, it doesn't make much of a difference, but as I'm creating more bulky-sized packages, the difference is appearing to make more and more of a difference. It doesn't appear to be some kind of placebo effect either - running 'time dpkg -b package/' has always shown to be churning out a package slower than 'time /script.sh', where 'script.sh' would contain, again, the commands found in my project [2]. Lastly, to wrap it all up then: This isn't a problem with the available tools on any given distro, but rather a problem with speed that I'm wishing to solve (likewise by creating the package manually, but alas the size issue with APT is still cropping up). [1]: https://archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/dpkg/ [2]: https://github.com/makedeb/makedeb/blob/alpha/src/functions/fakeroot_build.sh#L47-L53
Issue with installing manually created Debian archive with APT
I'm working on a project that [1] that aims to bring the PKGBUILD format used
on Arch Linux to Debian. That's besides the point though, and it's mainly just
to help showcase what I'm doing brought me to my current issue.
Anyway, part of the process that my program previously used is running 'dpkg
-b' to build a directory layout into a .deb package. This always seemed to take
forever though, and I've since gone with just creating the .deb package
manually [2] with tar and ar.
When I try installing the packages my program builds (with 'apt install
./debname.deb'), it works fine. But if I then try to reinstall the package
(with 'apt reinstall ./debname.deb'), this error keeps popping up for some
reason (the variables surrounded by '{}' represent values in a control file):
Repository is broken: {Package}:{Architecture} (= {Version}) has no Size
information
Is there anything I'm doing wrong when creating the .deb package (mainly
concerned with link 2 where the actual package creation takes place)? I've
tried looking at 'dpkg-deb/build.c' in dpkg's source code [3] to see what dpkg
might be doing when building packages, but nothing I tried got me to any
solution.
[1]: https://github.com/makedeb/makedeb
[2]:
https://github.com/makedeb/makedeb/blob/alpha/src/functions/fakeroot_build.sh#L44-L53
[3]:
https://salsa.debian.org/dpkg-team/dpkg/-/blob/main/dpkg-deb/build.c#L504-513
---
Hunter Wittenborn
https://www.hunterwittenborn.com
https://github.com/hwittenborn
Re: Regarding the new "Debian User Repository"
I'll be leaving the mailing list for the time being - if there's any further inquiries about the (now) MPR, I can be reached in the project's support rooms. Glad we all came to an agreement. Thanks for the patience!
Re: Regarding the new "Debian User Repository"
Hi, In combination with some thoughts that have been said here, as well as from a branding perspective of what is currently the DUR, I think I'm going to change the naming for the project. I'll be changing it to be called the "makedeb User Repository", which just makes more sense to me. One, it removes the targeting towards Debian (when the project /does/ first and foremost aim at Ubuntu), and two, it aligns more with the project's purpose, a user repository for use with makedeb. I think it would also give room for people at Debian to make a project with the "DUR" name without confusing it with mine, and allows me to keep my branding unique and specific as well. The branding on the website itself should take effect in the coming days, but the URL change for the website (dur.hunterwittenborn.com) will take effect in about a week or two when I can schedule some downtime for users. Thanks! Let me know if you have any comments on the course of action, --- *Hunter Wittenborn* hun...@hunterwittenborn.com
Re: Regarding the new "Debian User Repository"
Sorry, completely forgot to point to my reference. [1]: <https://docs.hunterwittenborn.com/makedeb/makedeb/additional-pkgbuild-specs/distribution-specific-relationships> --- *Hunter Wittenborn* hun...@hunterwittenborn.com
Re: Regarding the new "Debian User Repository"
Hi! Just thought I would pop in about some initial concerns Andrey raised: > As long as it only targets Ubuntu and doesn't mention Debian it's indeed only an Ubuntu problem. It mainly *targets* Ubuntu, but there's no reason it wouldn't be functional on Debian distributions. Dependencies can be listed for both distros through makedeb's release-specific dependency functionality [1], allowing the DUR's (as stated before, I'm open to changing the name) PKGBUILDs to work and provide for any number of systems. > ...it should at least be prominently described how does it work and why can that be bad for the users. If you visit the DUR website, it includes a link directly to the ArchWiki on how the AUR (which the DUR is based on, pretty much just with a reskin and some minor changes) works, as well as a guide for creating and setting up a PKGBUILD. I've thought about redoing the PKGBUILD docs for makedeb, but it just felt like it would be redundant when the ArchWiki article is already has a plethora of information about it. Regarding why the DUR could be bad for end users (i.e. from a security standpoint), the following is plastered on top of the DUR homepage (as well as the AUR's), in bold, which can be seen by all users before they log in: > *DISCLAIMER: DUR packages are user produced content. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk.* * * The same message can also be seen in the footer of all pages, whether logged in or not. * * Lastly, again, I'm open to changing the name if it would be preferred by a decent amount of people on the Debian team. It really wouldn't be too much hassle for me, but if I were to do it, I would prefer to schedule some downtime for the users that are already currently using the DUR so I can change everything in a planned manner. Thanks! Let me know if you have any thoughts, --- *Hunter Wittenborn* hun...@hunterwittenborn.com
