[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

At 15:30 +0000 on 04 Mar (1362411057), Alex Bligh wrote:
> --On 1 March 2013 09:35:45 +0000 Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>1. Providing some sort of debian packaging allowing the unstable build
> >>  to be used and installed in a normal way, to encourage testing of
> >>  unstable. This needs init scripts etc. in it, but typically the
> >>  user isn't making his own changes. This should be debuild thing
> >>  with a debian directory (in my opinion), and might not want to be
> >>  upstream in a conventional way.
> >>
> >>2. Providing a .deb for the developer, with a bit more functionality
> >>  than the .tgz (e.g. not stomping on configuration files), and
> >>  arguably some init files, but essentially to let the developer
> >>  install his own stuff. A make target is better here, partly because
> >>  make from clean (which is what debuild does) takes ages.
> >>
> >>3. Providing a minimalist install (e.g. without header files) of a
> >>  development build - i.e. a small 'package' to take over to another
> >>  machine to install for the purposes of testing - that's what
> >>  my minideb target did. Again a make target is better here.
> >
> >Couldn't (3) be a part of (1)?  You'd have a set of packages (e.g. xen,
> >docs, tools, tools-dev) and only install the ones you need.
> The main reasons why I didn't do (3) that way is that making a new
> .deb using debuild etc. tends to apply lots of patches to the source,
> and require building from clean. That isn't ideal if you are doing
> development builds from git (case 3), where you want to use make.

Ah - for some reason I thought you were using the minideb on production

So this comes down to three things [my opinions in brackets]:

Should we have a proper .deb package (or set of packages) build from the
unstable tree?  [Sure, if someone will volunteer to build and maintain

Should the debball special-case config files and init scripts? [I don't
think so.]

Do we need a 'mini' version of the debball? [I have no use for one, but
if people can agree on what gets cut -- what about stubdoms, pv-grub,
python and OCaml bindings, trace tools? -- it seems harmless, and 
is basically a 1-line diff to mkdeb to delete some files].



Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.