Re: [PATCH v2] tools: Improve make deb

[Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1313 bytes --]

On 27.02.2013 21:07, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 20:00 +0000, Alex Bligh wrote:
>>
>> Bringing debian packaging upstream is (I believe) considered 'no bad
>> thing'. 
> 
> On the contrary, Debian discourages upstreams from including a debian/
> directory in their releases.
> 
> Ian.
> 
I would agree with Ian here. I am sorry, I have not read anything of the
previous discussion but if it is about having a simple way of getting a test
package for deb (and rpm) based systems, the make target approach which is not
using a debian directory sounds better. For testing you likely want just one
package and that does not necessarily need any documentation. And if that was
done in debian/ it would make the Debian maintainers job a pain because the
whole packaging is based on the orig tarball not having that directory. (And
FWIW Ubuntu derives from Debian, there are only changes if we really really have
to).

The kernel has a "make deb-pkg" approach as well. Though there things are a
little more simple as there are less locations which can be different to the
normal packages. That might be much harder to achieve for the Xen (not only but
anything with a mix of binaries and libraries to be put somewhere in parallel
but not interfering if not wanted).

-Stefan


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 899 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel