Re: Package creation with GNU tools

[Soeren D. Schulze]

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>    Even before installation, the package has to be created.
> 
> The idea is to use the GNU System Creator that I am working on, it is
> based on GAR by Nick Moffit; which is similar to the way the BSD ports
> system works.  But with the crucial difference that it is ignorant of
> how to install packages into the system all it does is build binary
> packages that can be later processed into a CD image for people to use
> and install the GNU system.
> 
> And since all it does is create binary packages, it makes it quite
> easy to hack on things.  Just do "make extract", hack a bit, and then
> you can create a package that you can install if you wish with "make
> package".

Sorry, I do not understand properly:

Such a package contains a tarball that you can extract by
"make extract"?

> My goal is to make it similar in spirit to /usr/src in the BSDs, since
> /usr/src defines what the BSD system should look like.  Obviously, it
> won't be as bare as the BSDs, ince it will include all the normal
> things that a user might wish to see.  For programs that are not that
> normal (e.g. Bayonne), there will exist packages that are either off
> site or on a CD.  But in all cases, any package that is part of the
> GNU system will have a binary package; only that some will be
> installed by default.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about.
I am not very familiar with BSD.

>    In that case, it may make sense because not every package should be
>    forced to use autoconf and automake, but in a GNU system, things
>    are different.
> 
> Things aren't that different in the GNU system, the GNU system does
> not consist of only GNU projects.  X11 isn't a GNU project, and
> doesn't use the GNU Build System; yet it is part of the GNU system.
> The same goes for other packages, e.g. perl, TeX, flex, etc.

Autoconf could be replaced just with the dependency fullfiller (silly
word).  It would not support all those nice autoconf options, but it
would make sure the dependencies are fullfilled.

For replacing automake, a script could copy the files appropriately to
the right place of the bindist directory, as I called it, and it would
be packed as usually then.
But most packages should have a "make install" routine that could be
adjusted -- a script is quite a dirty solution.

At least we should make use of autoconf and automake -- unlike Debian.

>    What do you think?
> 
> I don't know, since I cannot see clearly what you are suggesting,
> sorry.

I do not really understand your comments, either...


Soeren Schulze