[Patches] [ python-Patches-1054967 ] bdist_deb - Debian packager
SourceForge.net
noreply at sourceforge.net
Sun Jun 10 13:11:43 CEST 2007
Patches item #1054967, was opened at 2004-10-27 02:48
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by alberanid
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1054967&group_id=5470
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Distutils and setup.py
Group: Python 2.5
Status: Closed
Resolution: Rejected
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Geoffrey T. Dairiki (dairiki)
Assigned to: Sean Reifschneider (jafo)
Summary: bdist_deb - Debian packager
Initial Comment:
Here's a first crack at a bdist_deb.
This patch implements two new distutils commands:
bdist_deb:
Build Debian packages
debianize:
Create and populate a top-level debian subdirectory.
(Essentially dh_make for distutils packages.)
There is a slightly detailed README.bdist_deb included
in the patches.
I'm open to suggestions for improvements and bug-fixes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Davide Alberani (alberanid)
Date: 2007-06-10 13:11
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=170840
Originator: NO
jafo wrote:
> It would be nice to have this code in Distutils
Absolutely! I think that a deb packages generator (so policy-compliant as
it can be) will be useful to many people.
Unfortunately I'm not an expert about debian packages, but maybe I can do
some testing and/or write some code.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Sean Reifschneider (jafo)
Date: 2007-06-10 12:58
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=81797
Originator: NO
This code has a number of outstanding issues including (primarily) whether
a contributors agreement will be signed. It would be nice to have this
code in Distutils, but I think this is a show-stopper to getting it in. If
Geoffrey signs a contributor agreement, I'll open it back up and see if I
can address the other outstanding issues.
Sean
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Andrew Straw (astraw)
Date: 2007-04-03 05:17
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=210276
Originator: NO
You may also be interested in stdeb, which produces Debian source packages
from Python packages. See http://stdeb.python-hosting.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis)
Date: 2005-03-28 17:06
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=21627
I agree with most of kbk's comments, except for 5: all of
the *_util modules are in distutils, why not deb_util? It is
not a command.
Also, dairiki, are you willing to sign the contributor form? see
http://www.python.org/psf/contrib.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Kurt B. Kaiser (kbk)
Date: 2005-03-20 00:18
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=149084
In response to jafo's request for comments on python-dev:
1. This facility should be documented in the Python Module docs.
A section should be introduced in "Distributing Python Modules"
after the 5.2 Creating RPM Packages. Also, the reference
disutils.command.bdist_deb should be supplied.
The fact that the rest of distutils is 'lightly' documented is no
excuse :-)
2. The README.bdist_deb should be folded into the doc strings
for the two modules (except the change info should be left behind
in the patch).
3. The existing doc strings in the two modules are not always
in standard form, and could be more extensive.
4. There are triple quoted block comments in the code. These
should be # comment blocks, cf. PEP8 and PEP 257. You
don't use doc strings to document variables.
5. deb_util.py probably belongs in distutils/command/
6. I would like it better if the default was to build the source
package, and that would be consistent with bdist_rpm's action.
7. I'm not entirely happy with the overall design: it seems there
are two ways to go. First, run bdist_deb, which give you a
package which isn't debian compliant; there's no
debian/changelog. Second, you can run dh_make, which will
'debianize' the Python source. This can only be done once, and
then the recommendation is to use the standard Debian tools
to create the packages. In this second case, apparently you
can't use bdist_deb, nor do you have a convenient way of
updating when the Python code changes, if I understand the
README.bdist_deb correctly. If these impressions are correct,
it's a lot of code for relatively little effect, at least at its current
level of development.
8. What about alberanid's last comment?
8. Do we have a commitment from Dairiki to maintain this code
for at least a couple of years?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Davide Alberani (alberanid)
Date: 2005-02-23 12:10
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=170840
Sometimes you need to install the same package for many different releases
of Python;
unfortunately this will fail, because dpkg refuses to override the dummy
man page, present
in both packages.
Would it be a good idea to modify line 453 of dh_make to include pyver in
the
name of the manpage file?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Marek Kubica (leonidasxiv)
Date: 2005-01-11 17:53
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=872713
I was looking a long time for something like this. I really
hope seeing this in Python 2.5, although I'm not familiar
with Python's development process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Geoffrey T. Dairiki (dairiki)
Date: 2004-11-11 17:18
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=45814
Another updated patch set.
The only change is a bug fix: when using a hand-build set of
debian/* files, dh_make will now deduce the correct Debian
revision and build architecture. (Bug reported by Bastian
Kleineidam.)
Patches, as always are on today's CVS version of distutils.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Davide Alberani (alberanid)
Date: 2004-11-09 16:39
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=170840
I've created a patch to make your bdist_deb/dh_make commands
compatible with Python 1.5.2; it can be found here:
http://erlug.linux.it/~da/tmp/distutils-cvs_debpy152-20041109.patch
Beware that I've tested it for a very short time,
so double check everything (especially the permissions
on file/umasks).
Moreover, the patch changes also some other files
like build_py.py, install_lib.py, bdist_rpm.py, that
were not 1.5.2 compatible - these changes are part of
another patch I've posted today.
HTH.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Geoffrey T. Dairiki (dairiki)
Date: 2004-11-08 22:38
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=45814
Another updated patch set:
As suggested by Bastian Kleineidam, when the source
distribution includes it's own debian subdirectory,
bdist_deb (rather than just crapping out) will now skip the
dh_make stage, and just run debuild.
As always, patches on the current CVS version of distutils
are attached below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Geoffrey T. Dairiki (dairiki)
Date: 2004-11-02 23:20
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=45814
Here's try number three!
Changes are mostly fixes for woody. The README.bdist_deb
(included in the patch set) enumerates the changes in more
detail.
(I've bitten the bullet and installed woody on one of my
machines, so I'm fairly confident it should work now.)
The patches, on todays CVS are, as always, attached below.
====
Note to Davide,
Thank you, again, very much for all the testing.
A couple of the lintian warnings
('prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link' and
'postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link') that are listed in
your test suite output are due, I think, to your mixed
system. Specifically, I suspect you've got the woody
version of lintian (which wants to see symlinks from
/usr/doc/<package> to /usr/share/doc/<package>), but a later
version of debhelper.
(Woody's dh_installdocs (in the debhelper package)
automatically generates those links, later versions don't;
/usr/doc has been phased out.)
Anyhow, I'm not going to fix those warnings (unless it turns
out that you're seeing them on your pure woody system.)
On package with python scripts (in /usr/bin) Woody's lintian
generates an 'unusual-interpreter' warning which I think is
spurious (i.e. it is not a valid warning.) (Lintian 1.20.17
doesn't recognize things like /usr/bin/python2.1 as a valid
interpreter --- it seems valid enough to me.)
Best Regards,
Jeff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Davide Alberani (alberanid)
Date: 2004-10-30 10:57
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=170840
I've tried the 29/10 patch with my home system (dpkg-dev 1.10,
debhelper 4.1.90 and dh-make 0.30) and another "pure woody"
system (dpkg-dev 1.9.21, debhelper 4.0.2 and dh-make 0.30).
I've used your test suite and some of my personal projects
(using both bdist_deb and dh_make); as far as I can tell, it
works very well. :-)
bdist_deb always worked as expected, producing good debian
packages.
I've used dh_make and then I've run "dpkg-buildpackage
-rfakeroot" and I got some errors (but I'm not sure they
depends on your code). Also your test suite produced some
failures.
Here you can find the output of "dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot"
and of your tests suite (both were running on my home system):
http://erlug.linux.it/~da/tmp/dpkg-buildpackage
http://erlug.linux.it/~da/tmp/testsuite
Thank you for your great effort!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Geoffrey T. Dairiki (dairiki)
Date: 2004-10-29 21:38
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=45814
Thanks for the comments. Here's a second attempt.
Changes include:
It might work with woody. (I'd appreciate it if you could
try again, Davide)
'debianize' command renamed to 'dh_make'.
Use debchange to create debian/changelog. This eliminates
the need to duplicate debchange's logic to deduce the
packagers name and e-mail.
A more complete test script.
Patches are on today's CVS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Davide Alberani (alberanid)
Date: 2004-10-27 16:47
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=170840
I've a woody with some packages backported from sarge
(debhelper 4.1.90 and dpkg-dev 1.10).
Running python2.3 ./setup.py bdist_deb with some of
my projects, I got the error:
dpkg-buildpackage: unknown option or argument
--check-dirname-level=1
Debian dpkg-buildpackage .
Commenting out the "check-dirname-level" and
"check-dirname-regex" options in the bdist_deb.py file
the script can go on, but it exits with the error:
debian/rules:11: *** first argument to `word' function must
be greater than 0. Stop.
Hope this helps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Sean Reifschneider (jafo)
Date: 2004-10-27 05:44
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=81797
I'm just doing a review of this code. A couple of things:
There's been some concern expressed about
get_default_maintainer.
Namely, that if debchange changes it's algorithm, it won't be
reflected in this code. It seems like one possible way
around that
would be to build a directory with a "debian" directory
under it, a
fake "changelog", and then call debchange to write the
data out, and
parse it. Too bad there's not a direct hook into
debchange to get
that information.
Can _formatdate, if email doesn't exist, use
rfc822.formatdate()?
Ditto for _parseaddr?
It looks pretty good. However, when trying to build a .deb
of my
jotweb2 package, it's failing with:
[...]
dh_testdir
dh_testroot
dh_installchangelogs-
dh_installdocs
cp: cannot stat `doc': No such file or directory
dh_installdocs: command returned error code 256
[...]
I'm not sure exactly why. I do have a "doc" directory in my
main
package directory, but I don't reference to it in my setup.py or
MANIFEST. Adding it to the MANIFEST doesn't seem to help this.
Sean
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1054967&group_id=5470
More information about the Patches
mailing list