On 16 Jul 2001, Thayne Harbaugh wrote:
> > > I dislike pruning out a few files from the source tree for this. It
> > > creates more overhead for packaging each individual package type.
> >
> > Well, we assume you don't create packages every day, do you?
>
> I never install anything on my machine without packaging it - even CVS
> builds of libgii and libggi are packaged. It's safer and easier to
> cleanup files and back out to a pristine state.
I see.
> > > The other problem is that sometimes people want to work with multiple
> > > packaging types but fetch their source from a single channel.
> > > This isn't the same as a Linux kernel where PPC doesn't care what's in
> > > linux/arch/i386 linux/arch/sparc linux/arch/mips etc. These are just
> > > a few tiny files.
> > >
> > > I don't like pruning out files.
> >
> > How about creating symlinks (i.e. from libgii/debian to
> > libgii/dist/debian) for doing this job. The result should be the same,
> > then.
>
> Sure, that's fine - but that's not what I was referring too. I'm
> against pruning out debian files for rpm's and vice versa. Maybe my
> response wasn't correct for Curtis' orriginal question . . .
Fine. So you agree with ...
1. ... having this structure:
<lib>/
<lib>/dist/
<lib>/dist/debian/
<lib>/dist/rpm/
<lib>/dist/win32/
<lib>/dist/bsd/
<lib>/dist/solaris/
...
where <lib> is the library, you want to package.
2. ... creating symlinks at <lib>/<package> to <lib>/dist/<package>.
(You can write a small shell-script, when creating symlinks for each lib
takes too much time for you.)
If I got you right, then you can start creating the dist/<package>
subdirectory and adding your spec-files at there in CVS. When you do so,
then you should remove tools/dist/* to not have duplicated
packaging-spec-files.
CU,
Christoph Egger
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
