From: csj <cs...@mi...> - 2001-11-30 00:17:08
|
Is the /debian directory on the build tree of xine-lib and xine-ui 0.9.6 supposed to compilable? How does it differ from the official source available thru apt-get and dselect? After doing "dpkg-buildpackage -b -rfakeroot", I noticed that the binaries were dumped in"debian/libxine5." The directory I expected would contain the binaries ("debian/libxine0") had only the control files. xine-lib-0.9.6$ find debian/libxine0 -type f debian/libxine0/usr/share/doc/libxine0/copyright debian/libxine0/usr/share/doc/libxine0/changelog.gz debian/libxine0/usr/share/doc/libxine0/changelog.Debian.gz debian/libxine0/DEBIAN/postinst debian/libxine0/DEBIAN/prerm debian/libxine0/DEBIAN/md5sums debian/libxine0/DEBIAN/control The file sizes also looked suspicious. Looking at the contents of the resulting debs confirmed the absence of the files found in "debian/libxine5." That is, the said failes were not packed into the .deb. xine-lib-0.9.6$ ls ../*deb -sh -1 12k ../libxine0_0.9.5-1_i386.deb 252k ../libxine-dev_0.9.5-1_i386.deb Hacking the debian/control file, I changed Package: libxine0 to Package: libxine5 This produced a 492k "libxine5_0.9.5-1_i386.deb" (note the *xine5*), which I have yet to install but which appears to contain the necessary library files. -- Sir Isaac Newton: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." |
From: Scott B. <ds...@ki...> - 2001-11-30 01:12:41
|
On Nov 30, 2001, csj <cs...@mi...> wrote: > After doing "dpkg-buildpackage -b -rfakeroot", I noticed that the > binaries were dumped in"debian/libxine5." The directory I expected > would contain the binaries ("debian/libxine0") had only the control > files. Yeah, I've been bashing my way through this one myself. My current working hypothesis is that the values of $(version) and $(major) are being computed incorrectly at the top of debian/rules. I hard-coded them to 0.9.6 and 0, respectively, and got more reasonable-looking .deb's, although some of the files I would have expected to be in libxine0 (like /usr/lib/libxine-0.9.so.5.0.1) ended up in libxine-dev instead, and the version numbers on both .deb's was still 0.9.5, as you encountered. I haven't tried installing them yet and building xine-ui; that's the next step... -sbigham |
From: Siggi L. <si...@us...> - 2001-12-04 10:29:33
|
Hi Scott, On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Scott Bigham wrote: > On Nov 30, 2001, csj <cs...@mi...> wrote: > > > After doing "dpkg-buildpackage -b -rfakeroot", I noticed that the > > binaries were dumped in"debian/libxine5." The directory I expected > > would contain the binaries ("debian/libxine0") had only the control > > files. > > Yeah, I've been bashing my way through this one myself. My current > working hypothesis is that the values of $(version) and $(major) are > being computed incorrectly at the top of debian/rules. I hard-coded > them to 0.9.6 and 0, respectively, and got more reasonable-looking > .deb's, although some of the files I would have expected to be in > libxine0 (like /usr/lib/libxine-0.9.so.5.0.1) ended up in libxine-dev > instead, and the version numbers on both .deb's was still 0.9.5, as you > encountered. I haven't tried installing them yet and building xine-ui; > that's the next step... I had a little backlog to catch up last week, so the Debian packaging stuff hasn't been up to date. 0.9.6-1 packages have reached the archive last night, and they should fix all the build problems. Most of that stuff will be added to CVS tonight, but the library versions still need some discussion beforehand... Cheers, Siggi |
From: csj <cs...@mi...> - 2001-12-05 17:25:15
|
On Tuesday 04 December 2001 18:29, Siggi Langauf wrote: > Hi Scott, > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Scott Bigham wrote: > > On Nov 30, 2001, csj <cs...@mi...> wrote: > > > After doing "dpkg-buildpackage -b -rfakeroot", I noticed that the > > > binaries were dumped in"debian/libxine5." The directory I > > > expected would contain the binaries ("debian/libxine0") had only > > > the control files. > > > > Yeah, I've been bashing my way through this one myself. My current > > working hypothesis is that the values of $(version) and $(major) > > are being computed incorrectly at the top of debian/rules. I > > hard-coded them to 0.9.6 and 0, respectively, and got more > > reasonable-looking .deb's, although some of the files I would have > > expected to be in libxine0 (like /usr/lib/libxine-0.9.so.5.0.1) > > ended up in libxine-dev instead, and the version numbers on both > > .deb's was still 0.9.5, as you encountered. I haven't tried > > installing them yet and building xine-ui; that's the next step... > > I had a little backlog to catch up last week, so the Debian packaging > stuff hasn't been up to date. 0.9.6-1 packages have reached the > archive last night, and they should fix all the build problems. > > Most of that stuff will be added to CVS tonight, but the library > versions still need some discussion beforehand... I also noticed the presence of hard-coded paths in ./xine-ui-0.9.6/misc/desktops/Makefile.am I can't build using fakeroot (dpkg-buildpackage -b -rfakeroot). I had to change all instances of "/usr/share/" to "usr/share/". -- Sir Isaac Newton: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." |