Marc Haber ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[snip]
> Even which pure_install, the empty dir is created. I don't understand
> the difference from pure_install to install anyway, the rules file of
> the package I used as an example last year invoked pure_install.
I found out why I don't have to remove empty directories manually: I'm using
dh_movefiles. The rules files looks then like this:
...
dh_installdirs
$(MAKE) install PREFIX=$(PWD)/debian/tmp/usr
dh_movefiles
dh_installdocs
...
You must then also have a file called 'libnet-ipnetmember-perl.files' with
only as content 'usr'.
> >[snip]
> >> > - The debian/rules is not in accordance with the Perl Policy, e.g
> >> > you shouldn't define PERL,
> >>
> >> Fixed. I don't exactly understand why, though.
> >
> >In cases like this I simply follow policy.
>
> Where in the Perl Policy is that mentioned? I must have overlooked
> that.
It was IIRC discussed on debian-perl and it's kinda reflected in that Section
3.3
has
perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
which calls perl directly (although one could say this is rather farstreched).
[snip]
> > - You have the order of dh_installdeb and dh_perl reversed from mine. Any
> > particular reason?
>
> No, that was taken over from my example.
>
> >I'm not sure it would make a difference, but it could.
>
> Sounds more sensible to do dh_perl first.
The examples in the debhelper package have it in the order I use. Maybe you
could Joey Hess whether the order is important.
[snip]
> > - You should install the upstream Changes via 'dh_installchangelogs' and not
> > via 'dh_installdocs'.
>
> Need to keep dh_installdocs for the README, though.
Yes, of course.
By the way, you should proably comment out the "export DH_VERBOSE=1", otherwise
the build is rather noisy.
Well, as fas as I'm concerned you can upload to the archive. welcome to the
wonderful world of Debian packages. :-)
Thanks,
Ardo
--
Ardo van Rangelrooij
home email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
home page: http://people.debian.org/~ardo
GnuPG fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9
