[Nut-upsdev] .deb rules in NUT trunk, on Ubuntu 7.10

[Charles Lepple]

n Jan 30, 2008 4:06 AM, Arnaud Quette <aquette.dev at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Charles,
>
> 2008/1/30, Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com>:
>
> > On Jan 29, 2008 6:49 PM, Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Arnaud,
> > >
> > > I just tried to build .debs from the trunk (r1254) on an Ubuntu 7.10
> > > box, and it looks like the rules file is installing files to both
> > > debian/tmp and debian/nut. This means the debian/nut directory is
> > > effectively ignored (the nut_2.3.0-*.i386.deb files come from
> > > debian/tmp instead).
> > >
> > > I am not sure of the best way to fix it, but it may involve changing
> > > the parameters to some of the debhelper scripts.
> >
> > Instead of "build .debs from the trunk", I should have said that I was
> > building from a tar.gz snapshot of the trunk at that point, made by
> > "make distcheck-light".
> >
> > Apparently, the 'compat' file was not being included in the tarballs
> > because it was not listed in Makefile.am.
> >
> > I took the liberty of reformatting the list of files in
> > packaging/debian/Makefile.am so that they can be compared more easily
> > with a list of files under SVN control.
> >
> > Also, since the logic for generating libupsclient-config has changed,
> > I am removing it from debian/rules (it is not generated if pkgconfig
> > is enabled in the configure script).
>
> yup, I've many changes underway, both in upstream and Debian.
> I've planned to a deep rewrite of the Debian package, using cdbs to
> simplify it and finally rewriting the debconf.

Cool. Has cdbs been updated in the past few years?
http://build-common.alioth.debian.org/ looks pretty old, and their CVS
repository indicates that some things have been moved to Arch.

> I'll also include the latest change for the shared library
> distribution. I intend to reduce the nut footprint (both for pkg,
> installed and in memory).

OK.

> Not sure it will be for 2.2.2, since I'll be a bit in a hurry, but for
> 2.2.3 otherwise.

Creating another testing branch specific to 2.2.2 is always an option.

-- 
- Charles Lepple