[dev] new debian build instructions

Rodny Molina rodnymolina at gmail.com
Thu Oct 12 02:42:24 EDT 2017


Thanks Martin. I ran the entire set of steps this time around and it worked. There are more steps than with the previous approach --previously we only had to adjust debian/rules to our needs and run dpkg-buildpackage to build frr.deb--, so in my first attempt i skipped most of the bullets in your Readme file. The current process is more complex, so i wonder if all the steps are really needed. For example, is backport creation step really needed?

cheers,

/Rodny

> On Oct 10, 2017, at 10:50 PM, Martin Winter <mwinter at opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
> 
> On 10 Oct 2017, at 21:56, Rodny Molina wrote
> 
>> Hi folks,
>> 
>> I just noticed that the original ‘debian’ folder has been moved to ‘debianpkg’ (which is breaking our build)
> 
> By the rules of debian maintainers, there should be no “debian” folder in the source as it breaks some automated debian package build setups.
> So the decision was made to keep the debian files in a different named folder
> 
>> , and that there’s a new set of instructions for building FRR.deb package. However, these new instructions (debianpkg/README.deb_build.md) are not working for me. Basically, we are missing a ‘changelog’ and (apparently) some other debian requirements.
> 
> There is a “changelog.in” which is the source for a changelog built by a “make dist”
> (“make dist” creates the source tar.gz archive which then can be used as a source for all the packages)
> 
> See step 4 in debianpkg/README.deb_build.md
> 
>> So a couple of questions:
>> 
>> * Do you have any cheatsheet for non-debian experts?
> 
> debianpkg/README.deb_build.md should be the cheatsheet. Can you give details where you fail or what part is not clear?
> 
>> * Are (somewhat) drastic changes like this one expected in stable (3.0) branches? Was this discussed somewhere and i totally missed it?
> 
> 2.0 is using the same setup and master should be converted to this next. The old setup had various issues.
> Debian Packages were discussed multiple times and (on 2.0) this setup was extensively tested and pushed with (so far)
> no negative comments.
> 
> But this is still a rc candidate, so it’s not too late to fix or improve the doc.
> 
> Can you open an issue and document the problems? (and feel free to assign to me)
> 
> - Martin




More information about the dev mailing list