[Pkg-xen-devel] Do we have one make more than necessary?

Ralph Passgang ralph at debianbase.de
Mon Feb 20 18:20:09 UTC 2006


Am Montag, 20. Februar 2006 19:13 schrieb Guido Trotter:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 02:45:26PM +0100, Ralph Passgang wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > the pae-hypervisor is working (even if the userspace tools are not
> > compiled "for" a pae version). That means we can definitly supply a
> > non-pae and a pae version of the hypervisor package that doesn't need to
> > conflict with each other in any way... great, that helps a lot in
> > packaging and maybe also for some users that can easily switch between a
> > normal and a pae setup then (if they have kernels installed for both).
>
> Good! :)
>
> > I also edited the rules file "a bit" (and tested it, so it still works
> > *g*)
> >
> > I have removed some (at least from now on) useless lines and changed the
> > make-calls a bit. now there will be only the make dist call in the build
> > section (+ the make xen call for the pae hypervisor if build_arch=i386).
> > If you find a better (and more debian-policy compatible) way, please feel
> > free to change it again. I just thought that is at least better then the
> > old way.
>
> I integrated your changes in the big modifications I had planned and was
> testing today... The now committed version is as policy compliant as I
> could get...
>
> There's still a small glitch in the fact that the pae hypervisor gets
> installed before (I reverted it that way so this "bug" is only on i386),
> but we have to cope with it! The only thing that could save us is to
> install it before, like it is now, but to some other place (eg
> $(CURDIR)/dist) and then copy it later...
>
> The reason why bothering doing so is that IF one was calling the build
> target as non-root but then using perhaps sudo rather than fakeroot there
> is IMHO the risk of having the pae hypervisor files installed as the uid
> who built them, which is not root, and thus is against the debian policy!
>
> Now, this issue won't probably happen, but as I have a fix I will probably
> apply it anyway, so we're as compliant as possible!

great, then I commit one more change...

with this change we now will install defintily the hotplug AND udev files and 
by doing so we can remove the "hotplug" build-dependency. This change will 
install the one or other etc directory twice, but I think thats far better 
then have a not really needed build-dependency that will annoy udev users.

ah, and I removed your comment regarding udev/hotplug, because is wasn't true 
either. upstream just install hotplug or udev (depending what is installed at 
build time) and because I depended on hotplug at build-time I added the make 
udev-install call to also install udev. hotplug support was available all the 
time (for sarge and unstable users that haven't udev installed). it isn't a 
problem to have both directories installed, but it helps the user to switch 
from udev to hotplug later on... and there wouldn't be an other way without 
(if I got that right) having two xen packages just because of the udev & 
hotplug thing.

--Ralph

> Guido
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pkg-xen-devel mailing list
> Pkg-xen-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-xen-devel



More information about the Pkg-xen-devel mailing list