Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] tools: Improve make deb

[Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>]

At 17:33 +0000 on 26 Feb (1361899998), Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013, Tim Deegan wrote:
> > At 17:22 +0000 on 26 Feb (1361899321), Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Tim Deegan writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] tools: Improve make deb"):
> > > > At 17:12 +0000 on 26 Feb (1361898743), Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > > > And I do think that there is a plausible argument that the config
> > > > > files ought not to be just blatted over the top of your system.  (If
> > > > > "make install" does that then there's the same argument there - I
> > > > > don't think "make install" should trash existing config.)
> > > > 
> > > > AFAIK 'make install' does; certainly some room for improvement in that
> > > > are.  In 'make deb' treating config files as normal data is deliberate.
> > > > I don't want remnants of old tests contaminating my new install - that
> > > > was the whole point.
> > > 
> > > If you say dpkg --purge they will be entirely removed, even if marked
> > > as conffiles.
> > 
> > Yes, but that assumes that the default behaviour shouuld be to leave
> > them around, which I dispute.  Again, using .deb leads to thinking about
> > how a real package would behave. :)
> 
> Maybe we should produce a tgz instead (plain or Slackware style).
> I wouldn't want to create wrong expectations: it is better to build no
> packages than building "broken" packages.

That's fair.  The existing deb target is just the configuration that I
find useful, and perhaps no more reasonable than anyone else's personal
preference.  I'm happy to take my ball and go home; I can use the mkdeb
script from my home directory just as well. :)

> (Of course I still think the
> best choice would be to produce good packages.)

Sure, but that's a lot more work than I've seen in any of these patches
so far.  Are you volunteering?

Tim.

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