Re: Non-Debian packaging practice

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thanks to all who replied. Intensive study of autobook and friends now underway. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 iD8DBQFEFSQxDkU5rhlDCl4RAqpiAK

Re: Non-Debian packaging practice

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 08:47:28PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote: > > "Russ Allbery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>So I must ask why do people dislike the autotools? Are there really > >>problems that outweigh the benefits of b

Re: Non-Debian packaging practice

"Russ Allbery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: So I must ask why do people dislike the autotools? Are there really problems that outweigh the benefits of being able to compile the program on strange architectures with little d

Re: Non-Debian packaging practice

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 12:03:05PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 02:04:32PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > and automake provides a framework for creating makefiles with > > common and useful targets. > > > Just stuffing autotools into an existing project just adds crud, > > w

Re: Non-Debian packaging practice

On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 02:04:32PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > 3. Version differences: This is a legitamate gripe. The autotools don't > > work nearly as wel as they could when developers > > are using different versions. However, I see no way to easilly fix this. They could have done more f

Re: Non-Debian packaging practice

Hi, > The possible exception is in combination with gnulib, but this seems > inconsistent, since most people I've asked, who know "about" autofoo, > don't know what gnulib is. But I'd love to understand more than I do. > > There are now projects that want to use autotools because it is > "right

Re: Non-Debian packaging practice

Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Some convenient interface for doing whatever has to be done; in the case > of shell scripts, just provide a makefile or shscript, or python or > whatever you prefer which accepts PREFIX or DESTDIR or whatever.. > It doesn't matter so much if it is #! /b

Re: Non-Debian packaging practice

Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm not sure why people don't like the autotools. They generally work > very well. The makefiles they make are even able to re-run the > autotools to update itself when needed! They generally work well. They're painfully slow. When using Autoconf, I have

Re: Non-Debian packaging practice

On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 07:00:12PM -, StealthMonger wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 10:35:22PM -, StealthMonger wrote: > > > > Is there a document describing software packaging good pract

Re: Non-Debian packaging practice

On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 01:41:54PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote: > "Junichi Uekawa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Hi, > > > >>Is there a document describing software packaging good practices for > >>general use, not specific to Debian, preferably in electronic form? >

Re: Non-Debian packaging practice

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 10:35:22PM -, StealthMonger wrote: > > Is there a document describing software packaging good practices for > > general use, not specific to Debian, preferably in electronic form

Re: Non-Debian packaging practice

"Junichi Uekawa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, Is there a document describing software packaging good practices for general use, not specific to Debian, preferably in electronic form? You might be looking for autoconf/automake (although it's a bit rusty, an

Re: Non-Debian packaging practice

On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 10:35:22PM -, StealthMonger wrote: > Is there a document describing software packaging good practices for > general use, not specific to Debian, preferably in electronic form? Policy describes how Debian packages should look. If you don't intend to get the package into

Re: Non-Debian packaging practice

Hi, > Is there a document describing software packaging good practices for > general use, not specific to Debian, preferably in electronic form? You might be looking for autoconf/automake (although it's a bit rusty, and quite a few people loathe it, it's one working current standard we have). Au

Re: Non-Debian packaging practice

On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 10:35:22PM -, StealthMonger wrote: > Debian discourages creating Debian-native packages: "This type of > packaging is only appropriate for the debian-specific packages, which > will never be useful in another distribution." [1] But creating it > for other distributions

Re: Non-Debian packaging practice

On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 10:35:22PM -, StealthMonger wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Is there a document describing software packaging good practices for > general use, not specific to Debian, preferably in electronic form? I'm not entirely sure I understand what yo

Non-Debian packaging practice

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Is there a document describing software packaging good practices for general use, not specific to Debian, preferably in electronic form? Debian discourages creating Debian-native packages: "This type of packaging is only appropriate for the debian-spe