Re: [PATCH 1/3] kbuild, deb-pkg: Try to determine distribution

Sedat Dilek
2013-02-28T09:45:55Z

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:32 AM, maximilian attems <max@stro.at> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 02:55:45PM +0100, Michal Marek wrote:
>> Sorry I missed this series. Max, can you have a look? I don't know the
>> policies for debian package changelogs. The full series is at
>> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1204.2/index.html#04252,
>> but the remaining two patches are obvious.
>
> the two remaining ones are trivial, should have pushed them a long time
> ago and will do so this weekend in a combined version going up to 2013
> (sitting in my queue to send).
>
>> On 24.4.2012 00:16, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>> > Signed-off-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> > scripts/package/builddeb | 15 ++++++++++++++-
>> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/scripts/package/builddeb b/scripts/package/builddeb
>> > index eee5f8e..f5b56ac 100644
>> > --- a/scripts/package/builddeb
>> > +++ b/scripts/package/builddeb
>> > @@ -172,9 +172,22 @@ else
>> > fi
>> > maintainer="$name <$email>"
>> >
>> > +# Try to determine distribution
>> > +if [ -e $(which lsb_release) ]; then
>> > + codename=$(lsb_release --codename --short)
>> > + if [ "$codename" != "" ]; then
>> > + distribution=$codename
>> > + else
>> > + distribution="UNRELEASED"
>> > + echo "WARNING: The distribution could NOT be determined!"
>> > + fi
>> > +else
>> > + echo "HINT: Install lsb_release binary, this helps to identify your distribution!"
>> > +fi
>> > +
>> > # Generate a simple changelog template
>> > cat <<EOF > debian/changelog
>> > -linux-upstream ($packageversion) unstable; urgency=low
>> > +linux-upstream ($packageversion) $distribution; urgency=low
>> >
>> > * Custom built Linux kernel.
>
> this is pretty useless.
> Nack, in adding a this additional lsb dep.
> I know it should be installed by default, but in practise it is often not.
>
> If you'd really care about the changelog you'd generate it out of your
> git repo with Debian's git dch in order to have something meaningful.
>

[ CCing Thorsten and Alexander ]

Thank you for your response.

This was a compromise for Debian and Ubuntu systems and as said
discussed with two longterm Debian maintainers.
Thorsten Glaser uses same mechanisms in his Debian build-environments
(he prefers -cs as parameters than long-format).
FYI: Ubuntu/precise ships lsb(-release) stuff by default!
Can't say if it is a "essential" package on Debian these days or not
(in my patch there is a warning if it's not available).

Personally, I think lsb-release binary is a good compromise in a
non-Debian-world, too.
I don't know of a real distro not shipping it - not thinking of
distros like LFS (Linux From Scratch) in first place (and did not
verify even if LSB stuff is done or not, I might be wrong).

What's your proposal to check for $codename/$distribution (just curious)?

Last question:
Should people CC you always on patches for deb-pkg?
For me it looks like you are "maintaining" it, so why not place you as
a maintainer in MAINTAINERS file?
( Didn't check what checkpatch.pl throws out. )
So, you do the work - get the credits :-)!

- Sedat -

P.S.: Ubuntu/precise beta1 ships lsb-release.

# grep lsb packages_01_precise-beta1.txt
ii lsb-base 4.0-0ubuntu20
Linux Standard Base 4.0 init script functionality
ii lsb-release 4.0-0ubuntu20
Linux Standard Base version reporting utility

>
> --
> maks