Without packaging system we have (A) source code, which can be translated/compiled to (B) binary code.
In case of debian/ubuntu packages we have (1) source code, (2) source package - dsc file and (3) binary package - deb file. How is it that (2) source package related to (1) and (3)? Why do we need it? And, the most important question: what is the workflow generating (2) and (3) from (1)?
The workflow usually goes approximately like this:
Someone not affiliated with Debian writes some source code and posts it as a package on the web, for example, splint-3.1.2.tar.gz
Someone at Debian downloads the source code, and writes
A set of patch files to make the source build on Debian and conform to Debian guidelines. Run
curl -s 'http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/s/splint/splint_3.1.2.dfsg1-2.diff.gz' | gunzip -dc | less
to see this for the example package.
A textual metadata file describing the package—this is the .dsc file and debian/control file. “DSC” is an acronym for Debian Source Control.
Binary .deb packages are built for each architecture from the original upstream source code with the Debian-specific patches applied. Here is one such file. The Debian Binary Package Building HOWTO explains the format of these files and how to inspect them.
The .dsc file is not used for build logic, it is more for metadata. However many tools along the way require it. For example, the Build-Depends: field is used to install required build dependencies.
It's actually much more complicated than that. The idea behind Debian packages is that they contain all the information needed to buld a page. Usually, the source is modified to include a debian directory that includes a control file describing the dependencies of that package and other packages that it interacts with (e.g, breaks, replaces, provides virtual package). A rules file explains how to build and install the package. There are also descriptions of how to package since a single source package can become many binary packages (e.g., foo-utils, libfoo0, libfoo-dev). debuild actually reads this information, does the compilation, and produces the binary packages. A subtlety: if foo uses libbar-dev, I may not actually know/care what version of the libbar binary package I use. pbuilder runs debuild in a clean environment so there is no chance of compiling against things you have not explicitly specified.
Consult the Debian New Maintainers' Guide for details.
Related
I have some task to make linux's bootable image with my own package. This package (named starlet) is a set of .C modules + Makefile. I created the package/starlet directory and added Config.in and starlet.mk; selected in the Buildroot configuration to include my package to build target image.
So, it's works fine...
Now i'm need to build starlet's image with additional library from the zztop-dev package.
zztop-dev package is an .RPM package with set of .H and .C files to build target zztop.a (.so) libraries.
What do I need to do to install zztop-dev.RPM before building STARLET image?
Having the source code for a package stored in a .rpm file is quite uncommon. Buildroot has built-in rules to extract all the most common formats. Using an uncommon format requires you to write extraction rules on your own.
So the first question is whether you can use a more common format that Buildroot has rules for. You probably can access the source code from its original location in a source code repository (git, Subversion, whatever) or a tarball.
If you really need to extract the sources from am .rpm file, then you need to write your own custom extract commands. Look for LIBFOO_EXTRACT_CMDS in the Buildroot user manual.
But if your extract commands call the rpm command to do the extraction then you'll need the rpm tool either installed on your host machine, or packaged as a host package in Buildroot and listed as a dependency of zztop-dev. The former approach is way simpler, but it will force you to have rpm installed on every host machine where you run the build.
I have a question about the structure of the source code from a cygport package.
Here is the contents of a Cygports source file:
the actual source bundle for the project (tar.gz, tar.bz2, etc.)
the any number of *.patch files.
a .cygport file
I am trying to build gedit-3.4.2 from cygports repository.
How does the .cygport file help me run the proper options in the ./configure ?
For instance, in gedit if i don't specify --disable-spell it won't proceed due to error. How do I get the list of ./configure options that were used to build the project when the cygport was built?
Is there some way we can use the cygport executable to build the cygport and change the prefix too?
Here is the contents of gedit-3.4.2-1.cygport:
inherit python gnome2
DESCRIPTION="GNOME text editor"
PATCH_URI="3.4.2-cygwin.patch"
DEPEND="gnome-common gtk-doc
girepository(Gtk-3.0)
pkgconfig(enchant)
pkgconfig(gtksourceview-3.0)
pkgconfig(libpeas-gtk-1.0)"
PKG_NAMES="${PN} ${PN}-devel"
PKG_HINTS="setup devel"
gedit_CONTENTS="--exclude=gtk-doc --exclude=libgedit* etc/ usr/bin/ usr/lib/gedit/ ${PYTHON_SITELIB#/} usr/share/"
gedit_devel_CONTENTS="usr/include/ usr/lib/gedit/libgedit* usr/lib/pkgconfig/ usr/share/gtk-doc/"
DIFF_EXCLUDES="*.desktop.in *.schemas.in *-marshal.h"
CYGCONF_ARGS="--libexecdir=/usr/lib --enable-python"
KEEP_LA_FILES="none"
EDIT Someone from Cygwin Ports mailing list said:
"The configure options are
--libexecdir=/usr/lib --enable-python
Which is from CYGCONF_ARGS."
Here is the contents of a Cygports source file:
You'd do better to think of it as a Cygwin package source file.
cygport is simply a tool for automating the creation of Cygwin binary and source packages. It is the primary tool available, but unlike with some other packaging systems, there's really nothing forcing you to use it. It is quite possible to build a Cygwin package entirely by hand, since it is really nothing more than a tarball that Cygwin's setup.exe can blindly unpack into the Cygwin root directory (typically c:\cygwin) with the expectation that this will put the package's files in sensible locations.
Before cygport existed, people did build their own ad hoc packaging systems. Many Cygwin package maintainers still use these tools they created. (Yours truly included; two of my three packages use cygport, but the third still uses a custom build system.)
Ultimately, you want to read the cygport manual, in /usr/share/doc/cygport/manual.html.
(Yes, I know, "RTFM" answers are frowned on here. But, as one who currently maintains two cygport based packages in the official Cygwin package repository, please believe me when I tell you that the manual is still the single best resource available on this topic.)
How does the .cygport file help me run the proper options in the ./configure ?
As you found out through other resources, you'd first need to edit the CYGCONF_ARGS value in the .cygport file.
The simplest possible step after that is cygport gedit-3.4.2-1.cygport all. That attempts to rebuild all the binary packages in a single step. It also builds a new source package containing updated .cygport and patch files.
If something breaks in the all build process, it is usually faster to switch to using the sub-commands contained by all instead of completely restarting the process. The all step just runs prep, compile, install, package, and finish for you, in that order. For instance, if all fails during the compilation step, there's probably no need to repeat the prep step.
(It is exceptionally uncommon for cygport or a sane build system to wreck the build tree, forcing you to re-run prep. Far more commonly, you end up needing to re-do prep when you manually wreck the build tree while trying to get a new package to build for the first time and need to start over.)
For instance, in gedit if i don't specify --disable-spell it won't proceed due to error.
You can probably fix that by installing the libaspell-devel package from the official Cygwin package repository with setup.exe.
Personally, I wouldn't disable any feature unless it meant installing unofficial packages, such as those from the Cygwin Ports project.[*] It is nice to have Cygwin Ports repository, but because it contains so many packages, installing one can end up creating an "install the world" situation: package A depends on packages B, C and D, and C depends on E, F, G, H, and G depends on I, J, K, and... Dependency hierarchies within the Cygwin package repo tend to be flatter and narrower than those in the Cygports repo.
Is there some way we can use the cygport executable to build the cygport and change the prefix too?
You have guessed that you just add --prefix=/my/private/program/tree to CYGCONF_ARGS, I trust.
[*] If you are feeling confused about "Cygwin Ports" and cygport, the naming similarity is no coincidence. cygport is a tool created by Yaakov Selkowitz for himself when creating the Cygwin Ports package repository. Later, it became popular enough among other Cygwin package maintainers that it pushed out most of the competing build systems.
My machine has lua-5.1.4 installed (from source) but does not have lua.pc. What is the development package to download for lua 5.1.4?
I am new to this myself, so please bear with me while I explain what is 'lua.pc'. If you think some of the information here is incorrect, please make full use of the edit button.
lua.pc or any file with pc for an extension is a file that goes into either /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig/ or /usr/lib/pkgconfig directories. It is a text file containing different fields such as Description etc., information that is used by the make install process. The default installation of lua does not install the lua.pc file. That is because it is the 'normal' package. However, the development package contains this file. The development package creates additional dynamic links (for shared libraries etc.) that are needed during installation of other software where these shared libraries may be dependencies. For more information, read here and here.
Update: lua.pc is present in the etc/ folder within the source tarball.
The lua.pc is in the source tarbal, in the etc folder
I'm looking into trying to find an easy way to manage packages compiled from source so that when it comes time to upgrade, I'm not in a huge mess trying to uninstall/install the new package.
I found a utility called CheckInstall, but it seems to be quite old, and I was wondering if this a reliable solution before I begin using it?
http://www.asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/
Also would simply likely to know any other methods/utilities that you use to handle these installations from source?
Whatever you do, make sure that you eventually go through your distribution's package management system (e.g. rpm for Fedora/Mandriva/RH/SuSE, dpkg for Debian/Ubuntu etc). Otherwise your package manager will not know anything about the packages you installed by hand and you will have unsatisfied dependencies at best, or the mother of all messes at worst.
If you don't have a package manager, then get one and stick with it!
I would suggest that you learn to make your own packages. You can start by having a look at the source packages of your distribution. In fact, if all you want to do is upgrade to version 1.2.3 of MyPackage, your distribution's source package for 1.2.2 can usually be adapted with a simple version change (unless there are patches, but that's another story...).
Unless you want distribution-quality packages (e.g. split library/application/debugging packages, multiple-architecture support etc) it is usually easy to convert your typical configure & make & make install scenario into a proper source package. If you can convince your package to install into a directory rather than /, you are usually done.
As for checkinstall, I have used it in the past, and it worked for a couple of simple packages, but I did not like the fact that it actually let the package install itself onto my system before creating the rpm/deb package. It just tracked which files got installed so that it would package them, which did not protect against unwelcome changes. Oh, and it needed root prilileges to work, which is another main sticking point for me. And lets not go into what happens with statically linked core utilities...
Most tools of the kind seem to work that way, so I simply learnt to build my own packages The Right Way (TM) and let checkinstall and friends mess around elsewhere. If you are still interested, however, there is a list of similar programs here:
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/automating-destdir.html
PS: BTW checkinstall was updated at the end of 2009, which probably means that it's still adequately current.
EDIT:
In my opinion, the easiest way to perform an upgrade to the latest version of a package if it is not readily available in a repository is to alter the source package of the latest version in your distribution. E.g. for Centos the source packages for the latest version are here:
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5.5/os/SRPMS/
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5.5/updates/SRPMS/
...
If you want to upgrade e.g. php, you get the latest SRPM for your distrbution e.g. php-5.1.6-27.el5.src.rpm. Then you do:
rpm -hiv php-5.1.6-27.el5.src.rpm
which installs the source package (just the sources - it does not compile anything). Then you go to the rpm build directory (on my mandriva system its /usr/src/rpm), you copy the latest php source tarball to the SOURCES subdirectory and you make sure it's compressed in the same way as the tarball that just got installed there. Afterwards you edit the php.spec file in the SPECS directory to change the package version and build the binary package with something like:
rpmbuild -ba php.spec
In many cases that's all it will take for a new package. In others things might get a bit more complicated - if there are patches or if there are some major changes in the package you might have to do more.
I suggest you read up on the rpm and rpmbuild commands (their manpages are quite good, in a bit extensive) and check up the documentation on writing spec files. Even if you decide to rely on official backport repositories, it is useful to know how to build your own packages. See also:
http://www.rpm.org/wiki/Docs
EDIT 2:
If you are already installing packages from source, using rpm will actually simplify the building process in the long term, apart from maintaining the integrity of your system. The reason for this is that you won't have to remember the quirks of each package on your own ("oooh, right, now I remember, foo needs me to add -lbar to its CFLAGS"), as the build process will be in the .spec file, which you could imagine as a somewhat structured build script.
As far as upgrading goes, if you already have a .spec file for a previous version of the package, there are two main issues that you may encounter, but both exist whether you use rpm to build your package or not:
A patch that was applied to the previous version by the distribution does not apply any more. In many cases the patch has already been applied to the upstream package, so you can simply drop it. In others you may have to edit it - or I suppose if you deem it unimportant you can drop it too.
The package changed in some major way which affected e.g. the layout of the files it installs. You do read the release notes notes for each new version, don't you?
Other than these two issues, upgrading often boils down to just changing a version number in the spec file and running rpmbuild - even easier than installing from a tarball.
I would suggest that you have a look at the tutorials or at the source package for some simple piece of software such as:
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5.5/os/SRPMS/ipv6calc-0.61-1.src.rpm
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5.5/os/SRPMS/libevent-1.4.13-1.src.rpm
If you have experience in buildling packages from a tarball, using rpm to build software is not much of a leap really. It will never be as simple as installing a premade binary package, however.
I use checkinstall on Debian. It should not be so different on CentOS. I use it like that:
./configure
make
sudo checkinstall make install # fakeroot in place of sudo works usally for more security
# install the package generated
I am trying to create a Debian package for a Java application.
In my package there is a .jar file which is executable, a script which will run this jar file and a .so file for fmod.
I've read this tutorial.
In the control file there is a 'Depends' field which basically describes the packages that need to be installed in order to install my application. My question is, how do I find which packages are required for my application? I followed the instructions in the tutorial for one of the .so files, and got this:
$ dpkg -S libfmodex64-4.28.09.so
dpkg: *libfmodex64-4.28.09.so* not found.
Also, my application requires Java 1.5 to be installed in order for it to run. How do I specify this in my debian package?
I strongly recommend building your package from source within the Debian packaging infrastructure. Everything will be pretty much automatically taken care of if you use the Ant class in CDBS.
If you do insist on assembling a binary .deb only, equivs is much less hackish than the method described by your document.
You'll want to get the canonical name for your library:
apt-cache search libname
Take care to note the nomenclature at the end of the package. You don't want to specify a specific version in the control file, just the earliest version of the library that is suitable for your application.
You would then use canonical_libname >= major.minor , which lets the system decide if you have (or can update to) the version of the library that can support your application. If you carve this in time, i.e. specifying the full version of your current library, you'll break in the future.
For instance, if you specify libfoo-1.2.34 and future versions of Debian ship libfoo-2.3.45, your package won't install, because it thinks you have an incompatible version of libfoo.