On September 11, 2010 06:04:34 pm Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Samstag 11 September 2010 schrieb Yuval Levy: > > On September 9, 2010 06:29:31 pm Kornel Benko wrote: > > > It should be (at a proper place) > > > > > > set(CPACK_DEBIAN_PACKAGE_DEPENDS "libpost2c2, libglew1.5, freeglut3, > > > > > > libboost-filesystem1.40.0, liblcms1, libopenexr6, libtiff4") but before > > > the line) > > > > > > INCLUDE(CPack) > > > > done! I neded a changeset to test tweaking to the email notifications > > from the repo. > > Hmmm, it was meant only as a correction of syntax for a proposal from Dale. > I did not want to say, the values are correct :( > > So for instance for me it is libboost-filesystem1.38.0 and not > libboost-filesystem1.40.0. This depends on the build-system unfortunately.
fixed. there is a syntax for version numbers. Refernce [0] I have the impression that our CMake build is still incomplete and maybe Andreas want to chime in with his expertise? * right now we do not set CPACK_DEBIAN_PACKAGE_ARCHITECTURE - how are 32bit packages distinguished form 64bit packages? should we set CPACK_DEBIAN_PACKAGE_ARCHITECTURE, and if yes how? * for the dependencies it seems to be on CMake's TODO list to automate 'objdump -p | grep NEEDED' - can this be scripted / integrated in our CMake build? * we do not set the maintainer, which is Debian-mandatory. CPACK_DEBIAN_PACKAGE_MAINTAINER * we do not set the description, which is Debian-mandatory too. CPACK_DEBIAN_PACKAGE_DESCRIPTION - what does the description say in your official packages, Andreas? maybe we should copy it rather than reinvent the wheel? * what can/should we do with the recommended fields (section / priority / recommends / suggests / control extra) ? * Anything else I am missing on the way to a proper Debian package out of CMake? Yuv [0] http://www.paraview.org/Wiki/CMake:CPackPackageGenerators#DEB_.28UNIX_only.29
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
