Thanks for your suggestions.
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [package contains only files from the debian/ directory]
>
> That's because you're calling "dh_clean -k" [at the start of the
> 'install' rule] which removes what has been installed...
Strange. That's another one placed in debian/rules by 'dh_make'. Under
what circumstances would that be a good thing to do at the start of
the 'install' rule?
> Here's a minimal diff of changes:
> === modified file 'debian/control'
> ...
> -Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 5.0.38),
> +Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 5.0.38), docbook-to-man,
Done.
> === modified file 'debian/rules'
> ...
> install: build ${PYVERS:%=install-python%}
> dh_testdir
> dh_testroot
> - dh_clean -k
> dh_installdirs
> dh_installinit
> dh_installpam
I've now moved 'dh_clean -k' to the end of the 'binary' rule.
> There's a bashishm in debian/rules:
> mv
> debian/${PACKAGE_NAME}/usr/lib/python$*/site-packages/${MODULE_NAME}{-${DEB_UPSTREAM_VERSION}-py$*,}.egg-info
That was my optimisation. Fixed now.
> But there's more to clean in that package. It's arch: all and should
> not be built with all python versions like you're doing. Thus
> there's no need to build-depend on python-all-dev but only
> python-dev, etc.
I admit to being confused between the recipes for building a Python
package for 'arch: any' and 'arch: all'. You're saying I need to make
this change:
-Build-Depends: python-all-dev
+Build-Depends: python-dev
What other changes do I need to make for an 'arch: all' Python
package?
--
\ "When you go in for a job interview, I think a good thing to |
`\ ask is if they ever press charges." -- Jack Handey |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
