Nut upsdev - May 2008 - .deb packages [was: Re: backporting changes from the trunk...]

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com>
wrote:
>  One thing I just noticed with the recent backport of packaging/debian
>  from branches/Testing is that we will probably want to keep separate
>  versions of packaging/debian for internal testing versus official
>  releases. Right now, "debuild -us -uc" from the trunk (rev 1490)
>  generates debs with version 2.2.2-1.
When I checked the contents of the .debs from r1490, I also noticed
the nut-xml .deb package is almost empty - it probably needs another
mv command in debian/rules to add the driver.

Arnaud: Let me know if you are already working on this.

In a similar vein, I have been using cdbs at work - it is actually
fairly nice, for the common rule cases. There are some issues with
overriding the default rules - basically, you can't, you just have to
reimplement them - but I don't think that NUT will have much trouble
with the defaults since it uses debhelper now.

-- 
- Charles Lepple

Hi Charles,

back from a long week end...

2008/5/12 Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com>:
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Charles Lepple <clepple at
gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  >  One thing I just noticed with the recent backport of
packaging/debian
>  >  from branches/Testing is that we will probably want to keep separate
>  >  versions of packaging/debian for internal testing versus official
>  >  releases. Right now, "debuild -us -uc" from the trunk (rev
1490)
>  >  generates debs with version 2.2.2-1.
>
>  When I checked the contents of the .debs from r1490, I also noticed
>  the nut-xml .deb package is almost empty - it probably needs another
>  mv command in debian/rules to add the driver.
>
>  Arnaud: Let me know if you are already working on this.
I am. I've just seen this when 2.2.2 was released, and when I started
to work on the official debs :-(
>  In a similar vein, I have been using cdbs at work - it is actually
>  fairly nice, for the common rule cases. There are some issues with
>  overriding the default rules - basically, you can't, you just have to
>  reimplement them - but I don't think that NUT will have much trouble
>  with the defaults since it uses debhelper now.
I've not yet really studied this. If you want to take over on a
branch, and check for the feasibility, you're much welcome.

arnaud
-- 
Linux / Unix Expert R&D - MGE Office Protection Systems -
http://www.mgeops.com
Network UPS Tools (NUT) Project Leader - http://www.networkupstools.org/
Debian Developer - http://people.debian.org/~aquette/
Free Software Developer - http://arnaud.quette.free.fr/