Re: debstd woes
Colin Watson wrote: > Unfortunately some packages still use it; there are 68 packages in the > archive that build-depend on it. It's not clear that use of debmake can > be considered a bug unless it's actually broken. And really quite a few more seem to use it according to the graph somewhere on my web site. The number is really not going down much either. -- see shy jo
Re: debstd woes
Colin Watson wrote: > Unfortunately some packages still use it; there are 68 packages in the > archive that build-depend on it. It's not clear that use of debmake can > be considered a bug unless it's actually broken. And really quite a few more seem to use it according to the graph somewhere on my web site. The number is really not going down much either. -- see shy jo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debstd woes
"CW" == Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: CW> Christian Marillat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> debhelper isn't compliant with the latest policy (Change with example >> path). CW> I think you're misreading the upgrading-checklist (well, it could I've just read upgrading-checklist and not the Debian policy :( CW> probably be clearer there anyway). debhelper is still correct to install CW> examples in general into /usr/share/doc//examples. It's only CW> examples and templates which are used directly by the package, such as CW> example configuration files that are copied to /etc by its maintainer CW> scripts, that need to be moved to /usr/share/ or CW> /usr/lib/. Thanks, this is more clear now. Christian
Re: debstd woes
"CW" == Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: CW> Christian Marillat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> debhelper isn't compliant with the latest policy (Change with example >> path). CW> I think you're misreading the upgrading-checklist (well, it could I've just read upgrading-checklist and not the Debian policy :( CW> probably be clearer there anyway). debhelper is still correct to install CW> examples in general into /usr/share/doc//examples. It's only CW> examples and templates which are used directly by the package, such as CW> example configuration files that are copied to /etc by its maintainer CW> scripts, that need to be moved to /usr/share/ or CW> /usr/lib/. Thanks, this is more clear now. Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debstd woes
Christian Marillat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >debhelper isn't compliant with the latest policy (Change with example >path). I think you're misreading the upgrading-checklist (well, it could probably be clearer there anyway). debhelper is still correct to install examples in general into /usr/share/doc//examples. It's only examples and templates which are used directly by the package, such as example configuration files that are copied to /etc by its maintainer scripts, that need to be moved to /usr/share/ or /usr/lib/. The rationale for this is that dpkg might be extended in the future to be able to exclude certain directory trees, and /usr/share/doc is one of the main directories people might want to exclude. See bug #87711. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debstd woes
Christian Marillat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >debhelper isn't compliant with the latest policy (Change with example >path). I think you're misreading the upgrading-checklist (well, it could probably be clearer there anyway). debhelper is still correct to install examples in general into /usr/share/doc//examples. It's only examples and templates which are used directly by the package, such as example configuration files that are copied to /etc by its maintainer scripts, that need to be moved to /usr/share/ or /usr/lib/. The rationale for this is that dpkg might be extended in the future to be able to exclude certain directory trees, and /usr/share/doc is one of the main directories people might want to exclude. See bug #87711. -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debstd woes
"CL" == Carlos Laviola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: CL> On Sun, 20 May 2001 00:42:10 +0200, Abraham vd Merwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Colin! >> >> > >However, if I run debstd, I get the following: >> > >> > One good question is "why are you still using debstd?" :) >> >> Hiehie, yeah, I discovered that debstd is ancient (so is 3.1.1 standard, >> we're already at 3.5.2 :P) CL> 3.5.4, actually. debhelper isn't compliant with the latest policy (Change with example path). Christian
Re: debstd woes
"CL" == Carlos Laviola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: CL> On Sun, 20 May 2001 00:42:10 +0200, Abraham vd Merwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Colin! >> >> > >However, if I run debstd, I get the following: >> > >> > One good question is "why are you still using debstd?" :) >> >> Hiehie, yeah, I discovered that debstd is ancient (so is 3.1.1 standard, >> we're already at 3.5.2 :P) CL> 3.5.4, actually. debhelper isn't compliant with the latest policy (Change with example path). Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debstd woes
On Sun, 20 May 2001 00:42:10 +0200, Abraham vd Merwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Colin! > > > >However, if I run debstd, I get the following: > > > > One good question is "why are you still using debstd?" :) > > Hiehie, yeah, I discovered that debstd is ancient (so is 3.1.1 standard, > we're already at 3.5.2 :P) 3.5.4, actually. > > Anyway, I fixed it (just used dh_make, etc.) > > I really think we should drop the debmake package from debian though since > this package is really old and just helps to get you on the wrong track. > > -- > > Regards > Abraham > > Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding. > -- Albert Einstein > > ___ > Abraham vd Merwe [ZR1BBQ] - The Debian Project > P.O. Box 3472, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602 > Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Http: http://people.debian.org/~abz/ > -- _ _ _| _ _ | _ . _ | _ carlos.debian.net Debian-BR Project (_(_|| |(_)_) |(_|\/|(_)|(_| uin#: 981913 (icq) debian-br.sf.net Linux: the choice of a GNU generation - Registered Linux User #103594 My, how you've changed since I've changed.
Re: debstd woes
On Sun, 20 May 2001 00:42:10 +0200, Abraham vd Merwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Colin! > > > >However, if I run debstd, I get the following: > > > > One good question is "why are you still using debstd?" :) > > Hiehie, yeah, I discovered that debstd is ancient (so is 3.1.1 standard, > we're already at 3.5.2 :P) 3.5.4, actually. > > Anyway, I fixed it (just used dh_make, etc.) > > I really think we should drop the debmake package from debian though since > this package is really old and just helps to get you on the wrong track. > > -- > > Regards > Abraham > > Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding. > -- Albert Einstein > > ___ > Abraham vd Merwe [ZR1BBQ] - The Debian Project > P.O. Box 3472, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602 > Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Http: http://people.debian.org/~abz/ > -- _ _ _| _ _ | _ . _ | _ carlos.debian.net Debian-BR Project (_(_|| |(_)_) |(_|\/|(_)|(_| uin#: 981913 (icq) debian-br.sf.net Linux: the choice of a GNU generation - Registered Linux User #103594 My, how you've changed since I've changed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debstd woes
On Sun, 20 May 2001 at 00:42:10 +0200, Abraham vd Merwe wrote: > Hi Colin! > > One good question is "why are you still using debstd?" :) > > Hiehie, yeah, I discovered that debstd is ancient (so is 3.1.1 standard, > we're already at 3.5.2 :P) > > Anyway, I fixed it (just used dh_make, etc.) > > I really think we should drop the debmake package from debian though since > this package is really old and just helps to get you on the wrong track. Unfortunately some packages still use it; there are 68 packages in the archive that build-depend on it. It's not clear that use of debmake can be considered a bug unless it's actually broken. Maybe the package description should just mention that it isn't being developed any more. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debstd woes
Hi Colin! > >However, if I run debstd, I get the following: > > One good question is "why are you still using debstd?" :) Hiehie, yeah, I discovered that debstd is ancient (so is 3.1.1 standard, we're already at 3.5.2 :P) Anyway, I fixed it (just used dh_make, etc.) I really think we should drop the debmake package from debian though since this package is really old and just helps to get you on the wrong track. -- Regards Abraham Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding. -- Albert Einstein ___ Abraham vd Merwe [ZR1BBQ] - The Debian Project P.O. Box 3472, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602 Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http: http://people.debian.org/~abz/ pgpqEWBvjpfAP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: debstd woes
On Sun, 20 May 2001 at 00:42:10 +0200, Abraham vd Merwe wrote: > Hi Colin! > > One good question is "why are you still using debstd?" :) > > Hiehie, yeah, I discovered that debstd is ancient (so is 3.1.1 standard, > we're already at 3.5.2 :P) > > Anyway, I fixed it (just used dh_make, etc.) > > I really think we should drop the debmake package from debian though since > this package is really old and just helps to get you on the wrong track. Unfortunately some packages still use it; there are 68 packages in the archive that build-depend on it. It's not clear that use of debmake can be considered a bug unless it's actually broken. Maybe the package description should just mention that it isn't being developed any more. -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debstd woes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson) wrote: >debmake/debstd's development was frozen some time ago, so I doubt it. >Most people [1] who use a helper package these days use debhelper. [1] http://kitenet.net/programs/debhelper/stats/ -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debstd woes
Abraham van der Merwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I've just upgraded one of my package's control files from 3.0.1 to 3.1.1 and >now I can't get the damn thing to build correctly. > >The one problem I'm having is with the configuration file. I have the >following in conffiles: > >< snip <--< snip <--< snip < >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/work/ixbiff-0.02b/debian$ cat conffiles >/etc/ixbiff.conf >< snip <--< snip <--< snip < > >However, if I run debstd, I get the following: One good question is "why are you still using debstd?" :) >< snip <--< snip <--< snip < >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/work/ixbiff-0.02b$ debstd >- debstd processing for GNU/Linux -- >-- Installing Documentation >-- Looking for manpages in sourcepackage >ixbiff.1 ixbiff.conf.5 >** Main Package ixbiff >-- Adding /etc/init.d maintenance commands for ixbiff defaults 20 >Warning: Configuration file /etc/ixbiff.conf not provided in binary package! >chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc: Operation not permitted >chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff: Operation not permitted >chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff/copyright: Operation not permitted >chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff/changelog: Operation not permitted >chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff/README: Operation not permitted >chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff/TODO: Operation not permitted >chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff/ixbiff.html: Operation not permitted My guess is that you aren't running the binary target as root or faked root, which you need to do. Try installing fakeroot and building the package with dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot. As for the configuration file, perhaps you're accidentally installing it into the real filesystem as opposed to debian/tmp and never noticed because you always built as real root before? Incidentally, make sure that /etc/init.d/ixbiff is a conffile too. >As you can see, it won't add ixbiff.conf as a configuration file. I can't >figure out why it can either (the error messages really suck - can't you >make it more verbose?) debmake/debstd's development was frozen some time ago, so I doubt it. Most people [1] who use a helper package these days use debhelper. >Also, why is chown failing? What's it trying to chown the files to? root, probably, who's supposed to own documentation files. >The structure of my source tree is as follows: [...] >and the configuration file is in the src directory. So maybe it can't find >it? debstd doesn't actually physically copy the script into debian/tmp - you need to do that yourself in debian/rules. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debstd woes
Hi Colin! > >However, if I run debstd, I get the following: > > One good question is "why are you still using debstd?" :) Hiehie, yeah, I discovered that debstd is ancient (so is 3.1.1 standard, we're already at 3.5.2 :P) Anyway, I fixed it (just used dh_make, etc.) I really think we should drop the debmake package from debian though since this package is really old and just helps to get you on the wrong track. -- Regards Abraham Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding. -- Albert Einstein ___ Abraham vd Merwe [ZR1BBQ] - The Debian Project P.O. Box 3472, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602 Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http: http://people.debian.org/~abz/ PGP signature
Re: debstd woes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson) wrote: >debmake/debstd's development was frozen some time ago, so I doubt it. >Most people [1] who use a helper package these days use debhelper. [1] http://kitenet.net/programs/debhelper/stats/ -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debstd woes
Abraham van der Merwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I've just upgraded one of my package's control files from 3.0.1 to 3.1.1 and >now I can't get the damn thing to build correctly. > >The one problem I'm having is with the configuration file. I have the >following in conffiles: > >< snip <--< snip <--< snip < >abz@oasis:/tmp/work/ixbiff-0.02b/debian$ cat conffiles >/etc/ixbiff.conf >< snip <--< snip <--< snip < > >However, if I run debstd, I get the following: One good question is "why are you still using debstd?" :) >< snip <--< snip <--< snip < >abz@oasis:/tmp/work/ixbiff-0.02b$ debstd >- debstd processing for GNU/Linux -- >-- Installing Documentation >-- Looking for manpages in sourcepackage >ixbiff.1 ixbiff.conf.5 >** Main Package ixbiff >-- Adding /etc/init.d maintenance commands for ixbiff defaults 20 >Warning: Configuration file /etc/ixbiff.conf not provided in binary package! >chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc: Operation not permitted >chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff: Operation not permitted >chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff/copyright: Operation not permitted >chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff/changelog: Operation not permitted >chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff/README: Operation not permitted >chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff/TODO: Operation not permitted >chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff/ixbiff.html: Operation not permitted My guess is that you aren't running the binary target as root or faked root, which you need to do. Try installing fakeroot and building the package with dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot. As for the configuration file, perhaps you're accidentally installing it into the real filesystem as opposed to debian/tmp and never noticed because you always built as real root before? Incidentally, make sure that /etc/init.d/ixbiff is a conffile too. >As you can see, it won't add ixbiff.conf as a configuration file. I can't >figure out why it can either (the error messages really suck - can't you >make it more verbose?) debmake/debstd's development was frozen some time ago, so I doubt it. Most people [1] who use a helper package these days use debhelper. >Also, why is chown failing? What's it trying to chown the files to? root, probably, who's supposed to own documentation files. >The structure of my source tree is as follows: [...] >and the configuration file is in the src directory. So maybe it can't find >it? debstd doesn't actually physically copy the script into debian/tmp - you need to do that yourself in debian/rules. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
debstd woes
Hi! I've just upgraded one of my package's control files from 3.0.1 to 3.1.1 and now I can't get the damn thing to build correctly. The one problem I'm having is with the configuration file. I have the following in conffiles: < snip <--< snip <--< snip < [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/work/ixbiff-0.02b/debian$ cat conffiles /etc/ixbiff.conf < snip <--< snip <--< snip < However, if I run debstd, I get the following: < snip <--< snip <--< snip < [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/work/ixbiff-0.02b$ debstd - debstd processing for GNU/Linux -- -- Installing Documentation -- Looking for manpages in sourcepackage ixbiff.1 ixbiff.conf.5 ** Main Package ixbiff -- Adding /etc/init.d maintenance commands for ixbiff defaults 20 Warning: Configuration file /etc/ixbiff.conf not provided in binary package! chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc: Operation not permitted chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff: Operation not permitted chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff/copyright: Operation not permitted chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff/changelog: Operation not permitted chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff/README: Operation not permitted chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff/TODO: Operation not permitted chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff/ixbiff.html: Operation not permitted -- Checking for executable binaries in package DEBIAN/postrm Script DEBIAN/postinst Script DEBIAN/prerm Script etc/init.d/ixbiff Script -- Compressing/Converting Manpages -- Compressing Documentation -- Checking Symlinks --- debstd processing finished -- As you can see, it won't add ixbiff.conf as a configuration file. I can't figure out why it can either (the error messages really suck - can't you make it more verbose?) Also, why is chown failing? What's it trying to chown the files to? Any help would really be appreciated PS: The structure of my source tree is as follows: < snip <--< snip <--< snip < [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/work/ixbiff-0.02b$ find -type d . ./debian ./debian/old ./man ./src ./doc ./contrib ./templates < snip <--< snip <--< snip < and the configuration file is in the src directory. So maybe it can't find it? Doesn't make any sense though, since with the 3.0.1 control files, it was found. -- Regards Abraham Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds. Biochemistry is the study of carbon compounds that crawl. -- Mike Adams ___ Abraham vd Merwe [ZR1BBQ] - Blio Corporation P.O. Box 3472, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602 Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Http: http://www.blio.net Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp4fNifa49it.pgp Description: PGP signature
debstd woes
Hi! I've just upgraded one of my package's control files from 3.0.1 to 3.1.1 and now I can't get the damn thing to build correctly. The one problem I'm having is with the configuration file. I have the following in conffiles: < snip <--< snip <--< snip < abz@oasis:/tmp/work/ixbiff-0.02b/debian$ cat conffiles /etc/ixbiff.conf < snip <--< snip <--< snip < However, if I run debstd, I get the following: < snip <--< snip <--< snip < abz@oasis:/tmp/work/ixbiff-0.02b$ debstd - debstd processing for GNU/Linux -- -- Installing Documentation -- Looking for manpages in sourcepackage ixbiff.1 ixbiff.conf.5 ** Main Package ixbiff -- Adding /etc/init.d maintenance commands for ixbiff defaults 20 Warning: Configuration file /etc/ixbiff.conf not provided in binary package! chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc: Operation not permitted chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff: Operation not permitted chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff/copyright: Operation not permitted chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff/changelog: Operation not permitted chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff/README: Operation not permitted chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff/TODO: Operation not permitted chown: debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/ixbiff/ixbiff.html: Operation not permitted -- Checking for executable binaries in package DEBIAN/postrm Script DEBIAN/postinst Script DEBIAN/prerm Script etc/init.d/ixbiff Script -- Compressing/Converting Manpages -- Compressing Documentation -- Checking Symlinks --- debstd processing finished -- As you can see, it won't add ixbiff.conf as a configuration file. I can't figure out why it can either (the error messages really suck - can't you make it more verbose?) Also, why is chown failing? What's it trying to chown the files to? Any help would really be appreciated PS: The structure of my source tree is as follows: < snip <--< snip <--< snip < abz@oasis:/tmp/work/ixbiff-0.02b$ find -type d . ./debian ./debian/old ./man ./src ./doc ./contrib ./templates < snip <--< snip <--< snip < and the configuration file is in the src directory. So maybe it can't find it? Doesn't make any sense though, since with the 3.0.1 control files, it was found. -- Regards Abraham Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds. Biochemistry is the study of carbon compounds that crawl. -- Mike Adams ___ Abraham vd Merwe [ZR1BBQ] - Blio Corporation P.O. Box 3472, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602 Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Http: http://www.blio.net Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP signature
