I've now got working (but not necessarily policy compliant) debian packages for xapian-core, the xapian python bindings, and omega and omindex. I will be sorting out a public apt repository of these shortly. Is it appropriate to add the debian control files (ie, those files in the debian directories in CVS) to the distribution tarballs? I think yes - they don't take up much space, and it'll make it easier for me to manage things. The RPM .spec files are in the distribution tarballs already, I notice. -- Richard
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Boulton" <richard at lemurconsulting.com> To: <xapian-devel at lists.xapian.org> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 1:37 PM Subject: [Xapian-devel] Debian stuff> I've now got working (but not necessarily policy compliant) debian > packages for xapian-core, the xapian python bindings, and omega and > omindex. I will be sorting out a public apt repository of these shortly. > > Is it appropriate to add the debian control files (ie, those files in > the debian directories in CVS) to the distribution tarballs? I think > yes - they don't take up much space, and it'll make it easier for me to > manage things.I think yes. I've just made the switch to debian (following Olly's example set all those years ago) and I would appreciate it> > The RPM .spec files are in the distribution tarballs already, I notice.This is so that RPM users can take the tarball and do: rpm -tb xapian.tar.ball and build from tarball using the spec file Sam
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 01:37:09PM +0100, Richard Boulton wrote:> I've now got working (but not necessarily policy compliant) debian > packages for xapian-core, the xapian python bindings, and omega and > omindex. I will be sorting out a public apt repository of these shortly.Where do you plan to put this? It would be nice if we could have xapian.org/debian or something as a public apt repository.> Is it appropriate to add the debian control files (ie, those files in > the debian directories in CVS) to the distribution tarballs? I think > yes - they don't take up much space, and it'll make it easier for me to > manage things.Yes, definitely appropriate. If Debian want to adopt it as an official package they will almost certainly want to work from release tarballs, not from CVS, given the way they work for security backports. J -- /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ James Aylett xapian.org james at tartarus.org uncertaintydivision.org
After fiddling with the debian packages for a while, I've come to the conclusion that it's not actually terribly appropriate to keep the packages for each xapian module inside the respective module in CVS. This is for a couple of reasons: 1) In general, the Debian packages may have multiple releases for a single xapian release. This could be due to finding minor packaging errors, or due to events entirely of of Xapian's scope (eg, changes in Debian packaging policy). 2) It is better to build the Debian packages from release tarballs, possibly with a few patches, than directly from the CVS tree. Issues such as building the documentation become easier if we just use the documentation as distributed. For example I'll not have to build-depend on "halibut" if the distribution tarballs contain the generated halibut files. For this reason, I propose creating a new, top-level, directory in CVS, called "xapian-debian", and moving the Debian control files into there (together with a script I'm using to grab the distribution tarballs and build the packages). Or possibly the name should just be "debian". I'd like at least one of Olly and James to explicitly approve this before I go ahead, since it involves making a new top level directory. I should shortly be able to make some Debian packages, suitable for use with Debian stable, available in an apt-get repository. Packages for unstable/testing will have to wait until I have a machine with unstable on it to build on, and a decent connection speed. -- Richard