maemo.org - Talk - Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!

maemo.org - Talk (https://talk.maemo.org/index.php)

- Community (https://talk.maemo.org/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo! (https://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=44597)

Re: Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!

attila77,

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. (Edit: And every one else's) I agree with your conclusion.

Re: Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatalsaint (Post 532362)

As far as his Build documentation (#4), that's entirely perspective. I have never had a problem finding the necessary how-to's to building a deb file properly or the proper formatting of the files.
The Build files (#5), again, never had a problem with this. And the nice thing about the debian/rules file is you can manually edit the exact steps needed to compile a piece of software: in case you get something that is written using a strange system other than cmake/qmake/automake/etc. I personally like having separate files, it's cleaner and easier to read, than a single, long, file to accomplish the same thing.

I talked to the guy on IRC and he didn't know debhelper 7. that explains a lot.
And with the new Debian source format 3.0, which is a tar.gz of the debian directory, it's now much easier to store binary files (e.g., icons) in the diff.
I think the debian dir is much more flexible then a spec file.

Re: Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatalsaint (Post 532362)

This is actually a matter of preference. Having dpkg behave in this way allows me to then do "apt-get -f install" to automatically download and grab the dependencies for that package, and then properly install all of them. No dependency hell (meaning tracking them down myself, or yum installing them one by one), so to speak. What is the equivalent of this in rpm?

You'd have to install the dependencies first, then install the RPM. As you say, doesn't really make much difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatalsaint (Post 532362)

Somebody else will need to address 6.. I don't understand how RPM can magically allow a user to suid root a binary that debian can't. This looks like something that should be taken care of in a postinst type script and can only be done as root... and the .deb takes and packages up the files with the permissions that they were given when you build the deb package - so if you suid the binary as root, build the deb, and then install it - it will come out suid. I don't understand what he's getting at.

With RPM you can specify the specific ownership and file permissions that should be applied to the installed files - the permissions on the files pre-packaging can be completely overridden. As you say, can be done in postinst but RPM presents a slightly (IMO) cleaner way of keeping this data in one place.

I'd agree with you otherwise - I've used a variety of package types (mostly RPM at work, using apt4rpm, smart, and now yum; ebuilds at home, and debs on the N800 and N900), and there's little practical difference between them nowadays.

P.S. And please don't mention the abortion that is up2date anywhere around me...

Re: Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!

Quote:

Originally Posted by attila77 (Post 532353)

8. debhelpers know about --prefix and dpkg itself has --instdir, it was (again) Nokia's choice to use special /opt handling instead.

debhelper doesn't know --prefix yet, but I have a patch for debhelper7.

Re: Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!

Quote:

Originally Posted by attila77 (Post 532353)

1. I think apt-get dist-upgrade does exactly what he describes. In additions there is an (admittedly seldom used) selection mechanism using which you can specify exact packages to operate on, see dpkg --set-selections (and it's friends, get a and clear) plus apt-get dselect-upgrade

Actually that's the opposite of what he says :D. dist-upgrade will upgrade a package allowing changes to other packages, including installing new ones or removing old ones. He said he didn't want that - which is what apt-get upgrade did... but he wants to do that only on a certain list of packages.

You're probably onto something with dselect.

Re: Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob1n (Post 532390)

In what way is this different from what dpkg-statoverride does ?

Re: Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatalsaint (Post 532397)

basically he wants something like "apt-get upgrade libqt-*" which only selects
installed "libqt-*". There are several ways to query those package names
with dpkg and then you simply pass them to apt-get.

Re: Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!

Quote:

Originally Posted by attila77 (Post 532405)

In what way is this different from what dpkg-statoverride does ?

I've no idea - I've never built a debian package. I was responding to the comment that .deb "packages up the files with the permissions that they were given when you build the deb package". If there's a alternate way to specify these permissions with .debs, then I don't see it makes much difference which format you use.

Re: Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob1n (Post 532390)

You'd have to install the dependencies first, then install the RPM. As you say, doesn't really make much difference.

Right, but how do you get the dependency names?? For example:

Code:

dpkg -i MyOwnDebIMadeYay.deb && apt-get -f install

A single line just installed my package with dependency handling without using any loops, cut's, line editing/parsing, etc. Assuming, of course, my dependencies are in the repo's on my system, and that the package I'm installing doesn't depend on other weird crap.

How do I do that with RPM?

Re: Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatalsaint (Post 532449)

Right, but how do you get the dependency names?? For example:

Code:

dpkg -i MyOwnDebIMadeYay.deb && apt-get -f install

Yum has a feature where it will install rpms from disk with dependency checking. "how can I install a .deb from disk using apt-get" is a _very_ common question in fedora->debian newbies (see http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=880612 , http://www.mail-archive.com/ubuntu-b...sg1661126.html ), which is something I find pretty ironic considering the current context :)