(+CC more debian folks) On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 9:45 PM Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > here're some patches for polishing up the Debian packaging stuff, > so it can be directly used w/ usual Debian machinery like > pbuilder, git-buildpackage, dck-buildpackage, etc. > > These expect debian/rules to exist in the unpacked/patched tree > and drive the whole build. Currently 'make deb-pkg' does it in > the opposite direction - it creates debian/rules and fills in > some data, that's derived from .config etc. > > My goal is building the kernel package in exactly the same way as > any other Debian package - so there must be a debian/rules as the > primary entry point. To do that, w/ minimal change and w/o breaking > the existing machinery, I'm going in several steps: > > #1: add Makefile rules for retrieving missing makefile-internal > variables kernel config system .config (eg. kernel arch). > > this could be used for other build systems, too. > just call: `make kernelarch` or `make kernellocalversion` > > #2: add an env variable for changing the name of the rules file > generated by mkdebian. When coming from an existing rules > file, we can prevent this from being overwritten. > > #3: add a generic debian/rules file, that calls mkdebian to > create the remaining debian control files (w/ rules redirected > into nirvana) > > The existing `make deb-pkg` is bypassed and remains ontouched. > > One point still puzzling me: once the debian/rules is applied and > somebody calls `make deb-pkg`, he'll end up w/ unclean tree, as > now a git-tracked file is changed. Then, setlocalversion will set -dirty flag. Committing debian/rules looks questionable to me. > Perhaps I just change deb-pkg to call debian/rules then, but I'd > like to hear your oppinions about this, before. > > > What do you think about that ? > > > --mtx > > -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
