On 22 April 2015 at 18:50, maximilian attems <maks@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 04:15:14PM +0300, riku.voipio@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> From: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> By passing BUILD_SOURCE=y variable, make deb-pkg builds a debian source >> package. It will generate a minimal debian/rules file that calls back >> to make deb-pkg. Generated source package will build the same kernel >> .config than what was available for make deb-pkg. >> >> The source package is useful for gpl compliance, or for feeding to a >> automated debian package builder. >> >> Patch depends on the "deb-pkg: move setting debarch for a separate function" >> for correct changelog filenames. >> >> Signed-off-by: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- > > great this is a much requested feature for wider adoption of make > deb-pkg. In general acked-by me, just minor comment below. > > I do not like the BUILD_SOURCE=y variable, > I think it should just be like the other scripts and do it by default. > > What we do need is a target that *only* compiles the linux image. So a bin-debpkg target in scripts/package/Makefile ? >> scripts/package/builddeb | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/scripts/package/builddeb b/scripts/package/builddeb >> index e397815..3d77fd3 100755 >> --- a/scripts/package/builddeb >> +++ b/scripts/package/builddeb >> @@ -272,12 +272,23 @@ On Debian GNU/Linux systems, the complete text of the GNU General Public >> License version 2 can be found in \`/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2'. >> EOF >> >> + >> +build_depends="bc, " >> +if [ -n "$BUILD_TOOLS" ] > why this dual stage? That variable was introduced in "RFC: builddeb: add linux-tools package with perf" [1]. Building perf as part of deb-pkg was kind of the major motivation for these series. >> +then >> + build_depends="$build_depends python-dev, libperl-dev, bison, flex, \ >> +libaudit-dev, libdw-dev, libelf-dev, libiberty-dev, libnewt-dev, autoconf, \ >> +automake, libtool, libglib2.0-dev, libudev-dev, libwrap0-dev, libiberty-dev, \ >> +libunwind8-dev [amd64 arm64 i386], libnuma-dev [amd64 arm64 i386 powerpc ppc64 ppc64el] " > how did you generate this list, this seems bogus to me?! > python-dev should probably be python > why would you need automake? These are build-depends of linux-tools (perf etc). > plus I do seem to miss cpio, kmod. I'll add kmod and cpio to the non-tools case. [1] [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2015/04/msg00013.html -- 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
