My company is a software development shop that uses Debian for all of
our production systems. We chose Debian based on it's reputation on
packaging. Our goal is to be able to type 'ant deploy' have our software
built, have debian packages built with our software, and other support
software, and the
My company is a software development shop that uses Debian for all of
our production systems. We chose Debian based on it's reputation on
packaging. Our goal is to be able to type 'ant deploy' have our software
built, have debian packages built with our software, and other support
software, and the
Hi,
I know both the deb (Debian developer) and the rpm (at work) side..
Am Mittwoch, 3. November 2004 17:47 schrieb Zach Garner:
> First:
> 1. The sheer number of helper scripts, with layers and layers of
> scripts built on top of each other is really confusing.
You don't need to use them... m
Zach Garner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First:
> 1. The sheer number of helper scripts, with layers and layers of
> scripts built on top of each other is really confusing.
Hm? Do you mean the debhelper scripts? Those significantly help
simplify the writing of debian/rules. Of course, if
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 10:47:45 -0600
Zach Garner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> First:
> 1. The sheer number of helper scripts, with layers and layers of
> scripts built on top of each other is really confusing.
You don't need to understand they all to make packages, but at least
you can
On Wednesday 03 November 2004 19:32, Rene Engelhard wrote:
--cut--
> > 2. The number of files that I have to create within the /debian
> > directory is difficult to deal with, and having to create the /debian
> > directory within my application directory and being forced to name my
> > applicatio
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Zach Garner wrote:
> 1. The sheer number of helper scripts, with layers and layers of
> scripts built on top of each other is really confusing.
Try
apt-get source hello
for an example package with less "layers".
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subj
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:47:45AM -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
[...]
> First:
> 1. The sheer number of helper scripts, with layers and layers of
> scripts built on top of each other is really confusing.
I'd agree it's pretty confusing, but only first time.
It's quite easy to understand it.
>
On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 21:26 +0100, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:47:45AM -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
> I'd agree it's pretty confusing, but only first time.
> It's quite easy to understand it.
I'm hoping so, that's why I'm trying not to give up too easily.
> Most of
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 04:06:01PM -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
> > > Second, why can't I create packages with standard unix commands? Why
> > > can't I say something like:
> > > $ tar cvzf data.tgz myapplication/*
> > > $ tar czvf control.tgz control
> > > $ tar czvf mypackage-0.1.deb data.tgz
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 04:06:01PM -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
> > Most of the apps are using `./configure && make && make install` so dh_make
> > tries to use that way.
> > In fact the only file you need is debian/rules.
> > It should be Makefile which create your package.
>
> What bugs me is that
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 11:52:41PM +0100, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 04:06:01PM -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
> > > Most of the apps are using `./configure && make && make install` so dh_make
> > > tries to use that way.
> > > In fact the only file you need is debian/rule
Zach Garner wrote:
> It generally works, but there is a lot of magic that happens in the
> dh_ scripts. For instance, I don't know how it knows that
> debian/ is where my application data is supposed to be.
> Is this hardcoded in dpkg-deb?
dpkg-deb can take any directory and turn it into a binary
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 04:06:01PM -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
> What bugs me is that as far as I can tell from the documentation,
> dh_make is the recommended proper way of doing things. Also, as far as I
> can tell I need the following:
> README.Debian compat copyright rules control dirs
dh_make o
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 04:06:01PM -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 21:26 +0100, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:47:45AM -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
>
> > I'd agree it's pretty confusing, but only first time.
> > It's quite easy to understand it.
> I'
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 09:26:25PM +0100, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> Most of the apps are using `./configure && make && make install` so dh_make
> tries to use that way.
> In fact the only file you need is debian/rules.
> It should be Makefile which create your package.
I probably should me
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:47:45AM -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
> First:
> 1. The sheer number of helper scripts, with layers and layers of
> scripts built on top of each other is really confusing.
Diversity is often seen as a virtue. That does mean that it can be hard to
separate the need from
On Thursday 04 November 2004 00:52, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
--cut--
> That is related to debian/control file.
> Whole packaging scripts assume that every "Package: " line in
> debian/control is used for final packages.
> So if you have:
>
> Package: my_cool_package
>
> line in debian/contro
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 02:18:35AM +0200, George Danchev wrote:
> my humble question is: if I have Source: and multiple Package: lines described
> in my debian/control file. But how is these debian// subdirectories
> created.. I end up with the firts Package: conctructed in debian/tmp , but I
>
On Thursday 04 November 2004 02:37, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 02:18:35AM +0200, George Danchev wrote:
> > my humble question is: if I have Source: and multiple Package: lines
> > described in my debian/control file. But how is these debian//
> > subdirectories created.. I end
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 10:47:45 -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
> My company is a software development shop that uses Debian for all of our
> production systems. We chose Debian based on it's reputation on packaging.
> Our goal is to be able to type 'ant deploy' have our software built, have
> debian packa
Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > any debian rules.
>
> the foo-0.1 is a convention. if your stuff doesn't follow it it is broken.
No, there is no convention and it doesn't matter at all what you name
the package's source directory. This has been completly unnecessary for
years.
> And: You *could* use a
Hi,
Joey Hess wrote:
> Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > > any debian rules.
> >
> > the foo-0.1 is a convention. if your stuff doesn't follow it it is broken.
>
> No, there is no convention and it doesn't matter at all what you name
> the package's source directory. This has been completly unnecessary
hi,
* Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-04 13:44]:
> On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 04:06:01PM -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
[...]
> > What I meant by standard roughly translates into available on most/all
> > unix or linux systems. The format of a .deb file is special as far as I
> > can
Hello George,
* George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-04 13:45]:
> On Thursday 04 November 2004 02:37, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 02:18:35AM +0200, George Danchev wrote:
> > > my humble question is: if I have Source: and multiple Package: lines
> > > described in my de
Hi,
I know both the deb (Debian developer) and the rpm (at work) side..
Am Mittwoch, 3. November 2004 17:47 schrieb Zach Garner:
> First:
> 1. The sheer number of helper scripts, with layers and layers of
> scripts built on top of each other is really confusing.
You don't need to use them... m
Zach Garner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First:
> 1. The sheer number of helper scripts, with layers and layers of
> scripts built on top of each other is really confusing.
Hm? Do you mean the debhelper scripts? Those significantly help
simplify the writing of debian/rules. Of course, if
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 10:47:45 -0600
Zach Garner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> First:
> 1. The sheer number of helper scripts, with layers and layers of
> scripts built on top of each other is really confusing.
You don't need to understand they all to make packages, but at least
you can
On Wednesday 03 November 2004 19:32, Rene Engelhard wrote:
--cut--
> > 2. The number of files that I have to create within the /debian
> > directory is difficult to deal with, and having to create the /debian
> > directory within my application directory and being forced to name my
> > applicatio
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Zach Garner wrote:
> 1. The sheer number of helper scripts, with layers and layers of
> scripts built on top of each other is really confusing.
Try
apt-get source hello
for an example package with less "layers".
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:47:45AM -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
[...]
> First:
> 1. The sheer number of helper scripts, with layers and layers of
> scripts built on top of each other is really confusing.
I'd agree it's pretty confusing, but only first time.
It's quite easy to understand it.
>
On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 21:26 +0100, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:47:45AM -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
> I'd agree it's pretty confusing, but only first time.
> It's quite easy to understand it.
I'm hoping so, that's why I'm trying not to give up too easily.
> Most of
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 04:06:01PM -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
> > > Second, why can't I create packages with standard unix commands? Why
> > > can't I say something like:
> > > $ tar cvzf data.tgz myapplication/*
> > > $ tar czvf control.tgz control
> > > $ tar czvf mypackage-0.1.deb data.tgz
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 04:06:01PM -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
> > Most of the apps are using `./configure && make && make install` so dh_make
> > tries to use that way.
> > In fact the only file you need is debian/rules.
> > It should be Makefile which create your package.
>
> What bugs me is that
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 11:52:41PM +0100, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 04:06:01PM -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
> > > Most of the apps are using `./configure && make && make install` so
> > > dh_make
> > > tries to use that way.
> > > In fact the only file you need is debi
Zach Garner wrote:
> It generally works, but there is a lot of magic that happens in the
> dh_ scripts. For instance, I don't know how it knows that
> debian/ is where my application data is supposed to be.
> Is this hardcoded in dpkg-deb?
dpkg-deb can take any directory and turn it into a binary
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 04:06:01PM -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
> What bugs me is that as far as I can tell from the documentation,
> dh_make is the recommended proper way of doing things. Also, as far as I
> can tell I need the following:
> README.Debian compat copyright rules control dirs
dh_make o
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 04:06:01PM -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 21:26 +0100, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:47:45AM -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
>
> > I'd agree it's pretty confusing, but only first time.
> > It's quite easy to understand it.
> I'
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 09:26:25PM +0100, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> Most of the apps are using `./configure && make && make install` so dh_make
> tries to use that way.
> In fact the only file you need is debian/rules.
> It should be Makefile which create your package.
I probably should me
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:47:45AM -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
> First:
> 1. The sheer number of helper scripts, with layers and layers of
> scripts built on top of each other is really confusing.
Diversity is often seen as a virtue. That does mean that it can be hard to
separate the need from
On Thursday 04 November 2004 00:52, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
--cut--
> That is related to debian/control file.
> Whole packaging scripts assume that every "Package: " line in
> debian/control is used for final packages.
> So if you have:
>
> Package: my_cool_package
>
> line in debian/contro
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 02:18:35AM +0200, George Danchev wrote:
> my humble question is: if I have Source: and multiple Package: lines
> described
> in my debian/control file. But how is these debian// subdirectories
> created.. I end up with the firts Package: conctructed in debian/tmp , but I
On Thursday 04 November 2004 02:37, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 02:18:35AM +0200, George Danchev wrote:
> > my humble question is: if I have Source: and multiple Package: lines
> > described in my debian/control file. But how is these debian//
> > subdirectories created.. I end
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 10:47:45 -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
> My company is a software development shop that uses Debian for all of our
> production systems. We chose Debian based on it's reputation on packaging.
> Our goal is to be able to type 'ant deploy' have our software built, have
> debian packa
Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > any debian rules.
>
> the foo-0.1 is a convention. if your stuff doesn't follow it it is broken.
No, there is no convention and it doesn't matter at all what you name
the package's source directory. This has been completly unnecessary for
years.
> And: You *could* use a
Hi,
Joey Hess wrote:
> Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > > any debian rules.
> >
> > the foo-0.1 is a convention. if your stuff doesn't follow it it is broken.
>
> No, there is no convention and it doesn't matter at all what you name
> the package's source directory. This has been completly unnecessary
hi,
* Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-04 13:44]:
> On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 04:06:01PM -0600, Zach Garner wrote:
[...]
> > What I meant by standard roughly translates into available on most/all
> > unix or linux systems. The format of a .deb file is special as far as I
> > can
Hello George,
* George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-04 13:45]:
> On Thursday 04 November 2004 02:37, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 02:18:35AM +0200, George Danchev wrote:
> > > my humble question is: if I have Source: and multiple Package: lines
> > > described in my de
Zach Garner wrote:
> What bugs me is that as far as I can tell from the documentation,
> dh_make is the recommended proper way of doing things.
dh_make automates a lot of the packaging process for most typical
packages, but it's certainly not required -- especially if it doesn't
suit your package
Zach Garner wrote:
> What bugs me is that as far as I can tell from the documentation,
> dh_make is the recommended proper way of doing things.
dh_make automates a lot of the packaging process for most typical
packages, but it's certainly not required -- especially if it doesn't
suit your package
50 matches
Mail list logo
