T o n g mlist4sunt...@yahoo.com writes:
I am doing test build of my binary package, and I get the following
warnings.
W: zh-autoconvert: empty-binary-package
I checked and it *is* empty, only containing copyright and changelog,
nothing else. I don't know why because it looks like the
On 02-01-14 20:44, Russ Allbery wrote:
Be aware of one gotcha: the destination column in *.install files
specifies the destination *directory*, not file name. You cannot use
dh_install to rename files;
Except if you build depend on dh-exec and use it (The man page is good,
so I am not going
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:44:28 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
You're building multiple binary packages from the same source package.
This means that the Debian package build infrastructure has no inherent
way of determining which files go into which package. You have to tell
it explicitly.
On 20-07-13 06:31, T o n g wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 03:11:46 +, T o n g wrote:
That part was fully clear to me. And as I said, in my tries it was
always there.
So you did the above normal steps as building any binary package but get
different result? Or did you do something more than
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 08:26:48 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
line, I put them there because I want to fix the following lintian
issues:
W: libpam-ssh-agent-auth source: debian-rules-missing-recommended-
target build-arch
W: libpam-ssh-agent-auth source: debian-rules-missing-recommended-
On 20-07-13 16:29, T o n g wrote:
- Simple: add the build-arch and build-indep targets yourself. If I am
not mistaken, with this specific rules file, you can just add them,
depend on the build target and do nothing in the target itself.
After a bit of struggle, I think these are the changes
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 18:17:20 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
I think these are the changes to the debian/rules in your mind, right?
[ . . . ]
Pretty close. . .
Thanks a lot again Paul for all the helps you gave.
My sponsor request has been sitting there for a while,
On 19-07-13 05:13, T o n g wrote:
As said in OP,
Which I don't have anymore, so indeed please repeat it if you want my help.
- I unpack the upstream tarball and build the binary debian package with
'debuild -us -uc'. the build is good.
Why do this debuild -us -uc first if you proceed with
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:38:49 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
On 19-07-13 05:13, T o n g wrote:
As said in OP,
Which I don't have anymore, so indeed please repeat it if you want my
help.
It was still included in the message that I previously replied.
- I unpack the upstream tarball and build
Hi Tong,
On 19-07-13 15:14, T o n g wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:38:49 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
Which I don't have anymore, so indeed please repeat it if you want my
help.
It was still included in the message that I previously replied.
Sure. therefore the word indeed.
- I then build
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 21:57:14 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
- I then build the upstream into *source package* with 'debuild -S
-sa',
and then build the binary debian package *from this source package*.
The binary package built this way is however empty.
So how do you do the last step? And why is
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 03:11:46 +, T o n g wrote:
Did you try to build debian binary package from there?
So please tell me what you mean with this sentence, I just don't know
what you mean.
build debian binary package from the source package that you just built.
I'll get back to you
[trying to post in text]
Hard to say without seeing your debian/ folder.
Right here:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/pamsshagentauth/pam_ssh_agent_auth/v0.9.5/pam_ssh_agent_auth-0.9.5.tar.bz2
Don't ask us why some 3rd party packages don't build properly, it's
expected. If
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 08:28:31AM -0700, Tong Sun wrote:
Don't ask us why some 3rd party packages don't build properly, it's
expected. If you have actual questions about actual problems you
encountered when trying to make a proper package ask them.
I have a different view on that.
Not
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 23:19:10 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
If they provide a debian directory, that means to me that they have
done their best to make sure their software can at least be packed into
a Debian binary package in the limited Debian environment that they
choose to test. They
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:17:49 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
On 17-07-13 20:30, Tong Sun wrote:
Re: Empty binary package
I'm wondering why the binary package built from my source package is
empty.
Here is what I've discovered so far:
- If I unpack the upstream tarball and build
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 03:02:46AM +, T o n g wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 23:19:10 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
If they provide a debian directory, that means to me that they have
done their best to make sure their software can at least be packed into
a Debian binary package in the
Re: Empty binary package
I'm wondering why the binary package built from my source package is empty.
Here is what I've discovered so far:
- If I unpack the upstream tarball and build the binary debian package with
'debuild -us -uc', then the built binary package contains the files I
Hi Tong,
Side note, could you please stop with posting html messages to Debian
lists? See the code of conduct:
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/index.en.html
Paul
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 17-07-13 20:30, Tong Sun wrote:
Re: Empty binary package
I'm wondering why the binary package built from my source package is empty.
Here is what I've discovered so far:
- If I unpack the upstream tarball and build the binary debian package with
'debuild -us -uc
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:30:13AM -0700, Tong Sun wrote:
Here is what I've discovered so far:
- If I unpack the upstream tarball and build the binary debian package
with 'debuild -us -uc', then the built binary package contains the files I
want
Using the debian/ directory provided in
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 01:30:14PM -0700, Tong Sun wrote:
I'm wondering why the binary package built from my source package is empty.
Here is what I've discovered so far:
- If I unpack the upstream tarball and build the binary debian package with
'debuild -us -uc', then the built binary
22 matches
Mail list logo
