Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Package does not contain libs if local compilation has not been done #41

Open
fthiery opened this issue Dec 16, 2015 · 6 comments
Open

Comments

@fthiery
Copy link
Contributor

fthiery commented Dec 16, 2015

After patching gst-rpicamsrc/debian/rules with || true so that the find|xargs doesn't fail, the following will produce an empty package:

cd gst-rpicamsrc
dpkg-buildpackage
cd ../
sudo dpkg -i gstreamer1.0-rpicamsrc_1.0.0_armhf.deb

The package didn't install the libs at all:

dpkg -L  gstreamer1.0-rpicamsrc
/.
/usr
/usr/share
/usr/share/doc
/usr/share/doc/gstreamer1.0-rpicamsrc
/usr/share/doc/gstreamer1.0-rpicamsrc/copyright
/usr/share/doc/gstreamer1.0-rpicamsrc/changelog.gz

However, if i do:

cd gst-rpicamsrc
./autogen.sh
make
dpkg-buildpackage
cd ../
sudo dpkg -i gstreamer1.0-rpicamsrc_1.0.0_armhf.deb

This time, the package does contain the libs !

$ dpkg -L gstreamer1.0-rpicamsrc
/.
/usr
/usr/lib
/usr/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf
/usr/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/gstreamer-1.0
/usr/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/gstreamer-1.0/libgstrpicamsrc.so
/usr/share
/usr/share/doc
/usr/share/doc/gstreamer1.0-rpicamsrc
/usr/share/doc/gstreamer1.0-rpicamsrc/copyright
/usr/share/doc/gstreamer1.0-rpicamsrc/changelog.gz

Shouldn't dpkg-buildpackage compile on it's own ?

@thaytan
Copy link
Owner

thaytan commented Dec 17, 2015

Yes, it should. Not sure I ever actually tested the contributed debian/ subdir. I think I did, but possibly not. If I did, I would have used 'debuild -rfakeroot'

@thaytan
Copy link
Owner

thaytan commented Dec 17, 2015

Hmm - I can't reproduce the failure you report:

git clean -f -x -d
./autogen.sh
dpkg-buildpackage
dpkg -c ../gstreamer1.0-rpicamsrc_1.0.0_armhf.deb

drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2015-12-18 00:26 ./
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2015-12-18 00:26 ./usr/
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2015-12-18 00:26 ./usr/lib/
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2015-12-18 00:26 ./usr/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2015-12-18 00:26 ./usr/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/gstreamer-1.0/
-rw-r--r-- root/root 67716 2015-12-18 00:26 ./usr/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/gstreamer-1.0/libgstrpicamsrc.so
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2015-12-18 00:26 ./usr/share/
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2015-12-18 00:26 ./usr/share/doc/
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2015-12-18 00:26 ./usr/share/doc/gstreamer1.0-rpicamsrc/
-rw-r--r-- root/root 2183 2015-05-11 18:22 ./usr/share/doc/gstreamer1.0-rpicamsrc/copyright
-rw-r--r-- root/root 149 2015-05-11 18:22 ./usr/share/doc/gstreamer1.0-rpicamsrc/changelog.gz

@fthiery
Copy link
Contributor Author

fthiery commented Dec 20, 2015

Can you try without running ./autogen.sh ? My understanding is that dpkg-buildpackage should be enough (and should run autogen), don't you agree ?

@thaytan
Copy link
Owner

thaytan commented Dec 20, 2015

I would not expect dpkg-buildpackage to run autogen.sh - that's normally a manual step that you only run when checking out from version control directly, and comes under different names.

@fthiery
Copy link
Contributor Author

fthiery commented Dec 22, 2015

I agree, but then release tarballs should be made available (with the configure files generated with make dist), at least accordingly to http://stackoverflow.com/questions/31359171/git-buildpackage-doesnt-call-configure-why

So there are 3 options

  • add to the doc that to generate debian packages, ./autogen.sh && dpkg-buildpackage should be run
  • provide classic release tarballs with configure script
  • have dpkg-buildpackage run autogen:
override_dh_auto_configure:
    ./autogen.sh

What do you think ?

I think this is why the build process was failing (and that's why i added || true) : i was not running autogen before dpkg-buildpackage, so that's why the la failes were never generated and failed to delete. Maybe it would be better to revert my pull request (it's somewhat better to fail building the package rathe than building an empty one... even if no message indicates why it fails).

@mlankhorst
Copy link

Oh actually I have a fix for this in my pull request. :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants