On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:32 AM, maximilian attems <max@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 02:55:45PM +0100, Michal Marek wrote: >> Sorry I missed this series. Max, can you have a look? I don't know the >> policies for debian package changelogs. The full series is at >> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1204.2/index.html#04252, >> but the remaining two patches are obvious. > > the two remaining ones are trivial, should have pushed them a long time > ago and will do so this weekend in a combined version going up to 2013 > (sitting in my queue to send). > >> On 24.4.2012 00:16, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> > Signed-off-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > scripts/package/builddeb | 15 ++++++++++++++- >> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/scripts/package/builddeb b/scripts/package/builddeb >> > index eee5f8e..f5b56ac 100644 >> > --- a/scripts/package/builddeb >> > +++ b/scripts/package/builddeb >> > @@ -172,9 +172,22 @@ else >> > fi >> > maintainer="$name <$email>" >> > >> > +# Try to determine distribution >> > +if [ -e $(which lsb_release) ]; then >> > + codename=$(lsb_release --codename --short) >> > + if [ "$codename" != "" ]; then >> > + distribution=$codename >> > + else >> > + distribution="UNRELEASED" >> > + echo "WARNING: The distribution could NOT be determined!" >> > + fi >> > +else >> > + echo "HINT: Install lsb_release binary, this helps to identify your distribution!" >> > +fi >> > + >> > # Generate a simple changelog template >> > cat <<EOF > debian/changelog >> > -linux-upstream ($packageversion) unstable; urgency=low >> > +linux-upstream ($packageversion) $distribution; urgency=low >> > >> > * Custom built Linux kernel. > > this is pretty useless. > Nack, in adding a this additional lsb dep. > I know it should be installed by default, but in practise it is often not. > > If you'd really care about the changelog you'd generate it out of your > git repo with Debian's git dch in order to have something meaningful. > [ CCing Thorsten and Alexander ] Thank you for your response. This was a compromise for Debian and Ubuntu systems and as said discussed with two longterm Debian maintainers. Thorsten Glaser uses same mechanisms in his Debian build-environments (he prefers -cs as parameters than long-format). FYI: Ubuntu/precise ships lsb(-release) stuff by default! Can't say if it is a "essential" package on Debian these days or not (in my patch there is a warning if it's not available). Personally, I think lsb-release binary is a good compromise in a non-Debian-world, too. I don't know of a real distro not shipping it - not thinking of distros like LFS (Linux From Scratch) in first place (and did not verify even if LSB stuff is done or not, I might be wrong). What's your proposal to check for $codename/$distribution (just curious)? Last question: Should people CC you always on patches for deb-pkg? For me it looks like you are "maintaining" it, so why not place you as a maintainer in MAINTAINERS file? ( Didn't check what checkpatch.pl throws out. ) So, you do the work - get the credits :-)! - Sedat - P.S.: Ubuntu/precise beta1 ships lsb-release. # grep lsb packages_01_precise-beta1.txt ii lsb-base 4.0-0ubuntu20 Linux Standard Base 4.0 init script functionality ii lsb-release 4.0-0ubuntu20 Linux Standard Base version reporting utility > > -- > maks -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
