Hi Ken,
----- Original Message -----
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nathan Scott [mailto:nathans@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, 12 May 2016 3:41 PM
> > To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [pcp] pcp updates
> > ...
> > > Ken McDonell (11):
> > > [...]
> > > debian/control: deleted
> >
> > This bit is problematic - we must have a debian/control thats part of
> > the source tarball, as it defines the packaged built by the *official)
> > Debian build machines. And since we generate the source tarball from
> > git now we have to have it committed in the tree.
> >
> > I've reverted that for now - is the problem there having a modified
> > file in the source tree? (it's OK for control.master to overwrite it
> > locally for our own builds - annoying to end up with a modified file,
> > but I don't think there's any other way we can go here...?)
>
> This is really ugly.
*nod*
> If control has to be in the tarball, how is that file related to
> control.master? Specifically, I guess it needs the conditional stull _all_
> included, but that suggests any change committed to control.master must also
> be made and committed to control.
Yep. Ugly. (and a source of lost changes in the past, as one would expect).
> Alternatively, consider the attached patch ...
> - keep debian/control out of git
> - make debian/control from debian/control.master in Makepkgs
> - add debian/control to tarball manifest
I believe that would work, yes, nicely done. I don't think the "else ... Arrgh"
branch there can ever happen? Consider generating the debian file(s) through a
new ./scripts/debian-files? (or some better name; so it can be utilised outside
of Makepkgs & more easily verified).
It might also be a good time to generate conditional code in debian/rules now -
I
think the infiniband PMDA packaging might be fixable then, currently its:
#$(pkgpcp_pmda_infiniband) $(MAKE) -C src/pmdas/infiniband install
cheers.
--
Nathan
|