[Pkg-utopia-maintainers] Bug#528383: hal: GNU/kFreeBSD support

[Cyril Brulebois]

Aurelien Jarno <aurel32 at debian.org> (14/05/2009):
> > > -Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, adduser, pciutils, usbutils, udev (>= 0.125), dbus (>= 0.61), lsb-base (>= 3.2-14), hal-info (>= 20070402), pm-utils, mount (>= 2.13), policykit (>= 0.7), consolekit (>= 0.3), acl
> > > +Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, adduser, pciutils, usbutils, udev (>= 0.125) [!kfreebsd-amd64 !kfreebsd-i386], dbus (>= 0.61), lsb-base (>= 3.2-14), hal-info (>= 20070402), pm-utils [!kfreebsd-amd64 !kfreebsd-i386], mount (>= 2.13) [!kfreebsd-amd64 !kfreebsd-i386], freebsd-utils [kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386], policykit (>= 0.7), consolekit (>= 0.3), acl
> > 
> > Why has pm-utils be removed on kfreebsd?
> 
> pm-utils is not installable on GNU/kFreeBSD as it is not installable
> (depends on console-tools), and also this package looks very GNU/Linux
> specific.

I didn't investigate this any further, trusting you.

> > So this is library is more or less private to HAL. I'm wondering, if
> > this lib shouldn't rather be moved to /usr/lib/hal (and shipped as
> > part of the hal package) or libhald-freebsd-probe (in
> > hald/freebsd/libprobe/Makefile.am) is made a noinst ltlib. The
> > latter would probably be my preference.
> > 
> > I'd really prefer if we don't need a separate binary package.
> 
> Ok, I'll come back with another patch.

So, I moved it from lib_LTLIBRARIES to noinst_LTLIBRARIES, and it looks
like that does the trick. This way, the convenience library is only used
at build time, and no longer installed, so no additional package.

Minimal changes extracted manually from an autoreconf run, I've left the
hunk related to the automake version bump just for reference.

I also compared “sudo lshal”'s output with the previous patch and with
that one, it's identical, so I guess we're fine.

> > > --- hal-0.5.12~git20090406.46dc48.orig/debian/hal.install.kfreebsd-amd64
> > > +++ hal-0.5.12~git20090406.46dc48/debian/hal.install.kfreebsd-amd64
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
> > > +debian/tmp/etc/
> > > +debian/tmp/usr/bin/
> > > +debian/tmp/usr/sbin/
> > > +debian/tmp/sbin/umount.hal usr/sbin
> > > +debian/tmp/usr/lib/hal/
> > > +debian/tmp/usr/share/hal/fdi/
> > > +debian/tmp/usr/share/PolicyKit/
> > > +debian/preferences.fdi  etc/hal/fdi/policy
> > > +debian/debian-storage-policy-ignore-fixed-crypto-drives.fdi usr/share/hal/fdi/policy/10osvendor
> > > only in patch2:
> > > unchanged:
> > > --- hal-0.5.12~git20090406.46dc48.orig/debian/hal.install.kfreebsd-i386
> > > +++ hal-0.5.12~git20090406.46dc48/debian/hal.install.kfreebsd-i386
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
> > > +debian/tmp/etc/
> > > +debian/tmp/usr/bin/
> > > +debian/tmp/usr/sbin/
> > > +debian/tmp/sbin/umount.hal usr/sbin
> > > +debian/tmp/usr/lib/hal/
> > > +debian/tmp/usr/share/hal/fdi/
> > > +debian/tmp/usr/share/PolicyKit/
> > > +debian/preferences.fdi  etc/hal/fdi/policy
> > > +debian/debian-storage-policy-ignore-fixed-crypto-drives.fdi usr/share/hal/fdi/policy/10osvendor
> > 
> > This is because the udev rules files are not installed on freebsd,
> > right? I'd somehow prefer if we wouldn't have to maintain three
> > separate files and keep them in sync. Not sure if this easily doable
> > though.
> > 
> 
> Yes, they are udev rules, useless on GNU/kFreeBSD and not even
> installed by 'make install'.
> 
> One solution is to not install those files from but conditionally from
> debian/rules. I don't really like that, especially if the kfreebsd
> version of the package also have specific files (the probe library).

Tweaked debian/rules and .install file given that:
 1. maintainer expressed the wish for a single file if possible, plus
    conditional stuff in debian/rules, I'm adding the udev rules only on
    Linux architectures. I first thought of removing them on non-Linux
    architectures, but as you said, they're not installed, so keeping
    the current .install file would mean a failing dh_install. That's
    why I'm doing it the other way round.
 2. no more additional probe library.