Hi Justin, Quoting Justin Cormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I was thinking about this earlier today actually, and there are a couple > of issues: > > 1. (fairly trivial) is it emdebian/rules or just an emdebian-build > target in the standard rules file? It was just a random idea. The emdebian-build rule/target was already mentioned as an option. But I thought that maybe by adding a new rules file designed for emdebian could make it easier to maintain the different angles. Avoiding big and complex structures. Especially when cross-compiling issues have to be corrected. Of course we could also call a seperate rules file for emdebian. > 2. we have to change the control file too (to change packages built and > build deps), so do we add an emdebian/control or debian/emdebian-control > file? Otherwise we are still going to have to patch original sources >From the new emdebian/rules file this file could easily be changed with sed or so. Or easily changed in the emdebian target in the adapted debian/rules file. > 3. if you do either of these, you wont be able to build packages from > standard source debs easily (because the emdebian dpkg will be looking > for the emdebian files). One of the nice things about uwoody is being > able to just grab standard package sources and build them. So in the > short term it might just be easier to maintain a set of patches against > normal debian. Changing from one to the other wouldnt be a lot of work > though, and could easily be automated. When using a different rules file this is indeed the case. I wonder if you did cross-compile uwoody. Because I encountered several problems when cross-compiling normal debian packages even with glibc. Therefore I changed some things in dpkg-cross and added in the same time support for multiple libraries, and removing . (see www.mind.be/stag if you want to know more what I did.) > I dont think these are very important though. I dont think you need to > change much more than control and some configure options in rules for > many packages, as it should be easy to make all the debhelpers that > install documentation do nothing instead so they dont have to be > commented out (not sure how many packages dont use debhelper). It is also a good idea you have here. Changing the debhelper scripts to avoid installing documentation when giving specific options. I'll keep that in mind. Greets, Philippe | Philippe De Swert -GNU/linux - uClinux freak- | | Stag developer http://www.mind.be/stag | | Please do not send me documents in a closed format. (*.doc,*.xls,*.ppt) | Use the open alternatives. (*.pdf,*.ps,*.html,*.txt) | Why? http://pallieter.is-a-geek.org:7832/~johan/word/english/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gestuurd via het webmailsysteem van het De Nayer Instituut: www.denayer.be
