Short question how to avoid creating one of two binary packages from source
Svante Signell <svante.signell@telia.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Tried to google but did not find any useful so far. I have a package I'm
> porting, and want to create one out of two binary packages from the
> source. Is there an easy way to achieve this, e.g. by an override
> statement. Or is brute force, removing all entries of that binary
> package in debian/rules, useful? Any other way to do this, by
> architecture checks? The Architecture entry seems to be all or any only,
> and Depends does not fit either.
>
> Thanks!
The architecture can be just some archs too. But that is often something
the rules file then has to take into consideration too. If you have a
source that builds part of its packages only on some arch then this is
your answere.
Otherwise you will be out of luck. Happy editing.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87d3imlz6b.fsf@frosties.localnet">http://lists.debian.org/87d3imlz6b.fsf@frosties.localnet
06-10-2011, 12:14 PM
Svante Signell
Short question how to avoid creating one of two binary packages from source
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 13:10 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Svante Signell <svante.signell@telia.com> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Tried to google but did not find any useful so far. I have a package I'm
> > porting, and want to create one out of two binary packages from the
> > source. Is there an easy way to achieve this, e.g. by an override
> > statement. Or is brute force, removing all entries of that binary
> > package in debian/rules, useful? Any other way to do this, by
> > architecture checks? The Architecture entry seems to be all or any only,
> > and Depends does not fit either.
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> The architecture can be just some archs too. But that is often something
> the rules file then has to take into consideration too. If you have a
> source that builds part of its packages only on some arch then this is
> your answere.
Thank you for your reply. Is it possible to use the negative form too in
the debian/control file?
Package: ntp
Architecture: !hurd-any (instead of any)
Depends: ...
Package: ntpdate
Architecture: any
...
Package: ntp-doc
Architecture: all
...
And then change the corresponding parts of debian/rules?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 1307708053.22466.181.camel@s1499.it.kth.se">http://lists.debian.org/1307708053.22466.181.camel@s1499.it.kth.se
06-10-2011, 12:14 PM
Svante Signell
Short question how to avoid creating one of two binary packages from source
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 13:10 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Svante Signell <svante.signell@telia.com> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Tried to google but did not find any useful so far. I have a package I'm
> > porting, and want to create one out of two binary packages from the
> > source. Is there an easy way to achieve this, e.g. by an override
> > statement. Or is brute force, removing all entries of that binary
> > package in debian/rules, useful? Any other way to do this, by
> > architecture checks? The Architecture entry seems to be all or any only,
> > and Depends does not fit either.
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> The architecture can be just some archs too. But that is often something
> the rules file then has to take into consideration too. If you have a
> source that builds part of its packages only on some arch then this is
> your answere.
Thank you for your reply. Is it possible to use the negative form too in
the debian/control file?
Package: ntp
Architecture: !hurd-any (instead of any)
Depends: ...
Package: ntpdate
Architecture: any
...
Package: ntp-doc
Architecture: all
...
And then change the corresponding parts of debian/rules?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 1307708053.22466.181.camel@s1499.it.kth.se">http://lists.debian.org/1307708053.22466.181.camel@s1499.it.kth.se
06-10-2011, 01:32 PM
Philipp Kern
Short question how to avoid creating one of two binary packages from source
On 2011-06-10, Svante Signell <svante.signell@telia.com> wrote:
> Thank you for your reply. Is it possible to use the negative form too in
> the debian/control file?
>
> Package: ntp
> Architecture: !hurd-any (instead of any)
> Depends: ...
No, but "linux-any kfreebsd-any" might work.
Kind regards
Philipp Kern
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: slrniv477b.vv2.trash@kelgar.0x539.de">http://lists.debian.org/slrniv477b.vv2.trash@kelgar.0x539.de
06-10-2011, 02:09 PM
Simon Paillard
Short question how to avoid creating one of two binary packages from source
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 01:32:27PM +0000, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2011-06-10, Svante Signell <svante.signell@telia.com> wrote:
> > Thank you for your reply. Is it possible to use the negative form too in
> > the debian/control file?
> >
> > Package: ntp
> > Architecture: !hurd-any (instead of any)
> > Depends: ...
>
> No, but "linux-any kfreebsd-any" might work.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110610140958.GP17213@glenfiddich.mraw.org">http://lists.debian.org/20110610140958.GP17213@glenfiddich.mraw.org
Short question how to avoid creating one of two binary packages from source
