On 10 February 2010 21:40, Anton Piatek <an...@piatek.co.uk> wrote: > On 10 February 2010 21:11, Alan Pope <a...@popey.com> wrote: >> On 10 February 2010 20:58, Liam Wilson <liamwilso...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Out of curiosity, can I ask why it's worse to package software in a .deb >>> file in the long run? >>> >> >> I think Anton was saying that it's worse to package binary debian >> packages, not debian packages as a whole. We create source packages >> which can be uploaded to (for example) launchpad PPAs, and built >> (compiled) for multiple architectures including i386, AMD64, LPIA and >> ARM. If you build binary packages then the onus is on you to rebuild >> for other architectures. > > That is indeed what I meant. > Doing a debian source package allows you to rebuild easily and use the > advanced features available through debian helper scripts. > Creating the folder layouts and using dpkg-deb (or zipping it up > manually) to build *only* the .deb without using the debian > buildscripts may seem simple at first but has serious limitations, not > least rebuilding for another architecture via a PPA or similar > > Anton > > > -- > Anton Piatek > email: an...@piatek.co.uk > blog/photos: http://www.strangeparty.com > pgp: [74B1FA37] (http://www.strangeparty.com/anton.asc) > fingerprint: 7401 96D3 E037 2F8F 5965 A358 4046 71FD 74B1 FA37 > > No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however, a > significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. > I am unable o tell which level you are at from the emails but the Ubuntu packaging guide may still be of help for you. You can view the guide here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide
All the best, Chris. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
