Re: [Xen-devel] Xen4.2 debian packaging

[Alex Bligh <alex@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stefano,

--On 25 February 2013 20:14:33 +0000 Stefano Stabellini 
<stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013, Alex Bligh wrote:
> > However, that isn't the end of the story. If you want a lightweight
> > deb that doesn't take 39 years to build and is integrated into the
> > build system (because you are a developer), the minideb thing is
> > far easier (as it's just an extra make step), than debuild -us -uc -b,
> > dealing with all the debian/ubuntu patches that get applied to the
> > source, etc. etc.
> That's all good, but how does it compare to the deb target of the
> xen-unstable build system?
How does the minideb thing compare? It's exactly the same, except:

* it misses the files that aren't needed for a minimal xl based install.
 So, for instance, no header files.

* I made the init scripts do something useful (arguably this change
 should be brought over to the main debian target).

> From memory I copied mkdeb:
https://github.com/abligh/xen-4.2-live-migrate/blob/ffbfc9394a74d0344be5982a5fed9aa9fa28ad74/tools/misc/mkdeb

and made this:

https://github.com/abligh/xen-4.2-live-migrate/blob/ffbfc9394a74d0344be5982a5fed9aa9fa28ad74/minideb/mkdeb

> I think we are not going to have two different deb build targets, so
> given that we already have one, we would replace it only if your minideb
> is better in some ways.
Well, the init scripts work (though those could be copied across).
I suppose given they are so similar one route would be a 'what would
you like in your .deb' parameter (e.g. 'make deb SRC=0')

As I said, I'm really not that fussed as it 'works for me'.

--
Alex Bligh

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel