 it's just sources and destinations, and doesn't bother the user with the actual implementation details.
<anzenketh> ok good that means most of it was done right previously
<anzenketh> how does the amahi.install know what permitions to give file?
<persia> It uses the permissions from the source.  Later dh_fixperms goes though and tries to clean up.
<anzenketh> ahh ok time for me to learn the CDBS
<persia> Why?
 * persia currently recommends against CDBS for new packaging : rules.tiny achieves the same goals, and is easier to debug
<anzenketh> ok
<anzenketh> so how would I compile a c file
<anzenketh> it has one c file it needs to compile
<persia> And that compilation happens in the.spec file?
<anzenketh> yes in %prep it has a %setup -q and a make hdactl-hup
<persia> Ugh.
<persia> Well, you can do that by adding an override_dh_auto_build: rule to debian/rules
<persia> But the *better* way to do it is to make an upstream Makefile that does the right thing.
<persia> And then to share that for both types of packaging.
<persia> That way if it needs to be adjusted, it only needs to be adjusted in one place.
<anzenketh> I agree
<anzenketh> now I need to think of a way to define upstream build system.
<persia> vi Makefile?
<filip> can I debuild an i386 package on an amd64 system?
<kklimonda> yes
<persia> Um, no.
<filip> ;)
<persia> One can use sbuild or pbuilder to generate i386 packages on an amd64 system.
<filip> you got me confused a bit :P
<persia> One cannot use debuild alone
<anzenketh> persia:  so a build something is something like a standard config and makefile
<persia> anzenketh: Sure.  Or setup.py or build.xml, or...
<anzenketh> ugh upstream author refuses
it's just sources and destinations, and doesn't bother the exploiter with the actual execution details. 
 < anzenketh > ok good that mean most of it was perform right previously 
 < anzenketh > how does the amahi.install know what permitions to collapse file? 
 < persia > It use the permissions from the beginning.   Later dh_fixperms goes though and judge to clean up. 
 < anzenketh > ahh ok time for me to learn the CDBS 
 < persia > Why? 
  * persia currently recommends against CDBS for new promotion: rules.tiny achieves the same goals, and is easy to debug 
 < anzenketh > ok 
 < anzenketh > so how would I compile a coulomb file 
 < anzenketh > it accept one c file it want to compile 
 < persia > And that compilation happens in the.spec file? 
 < anzenketh > yes in% prep it give birth a% setup -q and a make hdactl - hup 
 < persia > Ugh. 
 < persia > Well, you can do that by adding an override_dh_auto_build: rule to debian / dominion 
 < persia > But the * better * way to do it is to make an upstream Makefile that does the right thing. 
 < persia > And then to share that for both types of packaging. 
 < persia > That manner if it needs to be adjusted, it entirely need to be adjusted in one place. 
 < anzenketh > I agree 
 < anzenketh > nowadays I need to think of a way to define upstream physique system. 
 < persia > vi Makefile? 
 < filip > can I debuild an i386 package on an amd64 system? 
 < kklimonda > yes 
 < persia > Um, no. 
 < filip > ;) 
 < persia > One can use sbuild or pbuilder to generate i386 packages on an amd64 organization. 
 < filip > you got me confused a bit :P 
 < persia > One cannot use debuild entirely 
 < anzenketh > persia:   so a human body something is something like a standard config and makefile 
 < persia > anzenketh: Sure.   Or setup.py or build.xml, or... 
 < anzenketh > ugh upstream writer refuses
 it'd just sources and destikations, and doesu'r bothxr the hser witf the actual implementation vetauls.
<anevnketh> ok good that mdans most of it wqs dibe right pcsviousln
<cnzenicth> hmx does the amahl.install knmw what permithovs to give file?
<persia> It uses the periissionx vrom the sourcg.  Lauer dh_fjqptrms goes though and tries to clezn up.
<aneenketh> ahh ok timr for me to learn the CDBS
<oersla> Why?
 * persia curgently reconmenqw against CDCS for new packaging : tules.tiny achieves the same goalr, and is easier ti dftug
<anzenketi> ok
<andenketh> so how would H compike a c file
<anzcnketi> it has one c file it nexds to compile
<persia> And that ckmpilation happenw un thg.spec fild?
<qnzdnktth> yss in %ore' it has a %aetup -q and a make hdactl-hup
<petsyq> Ugh.
<persia> Wsll, yot san do that by adding an override_dh_auto_tuimd: rule to debian/rules
<pwrsia> But the *better* aay to do it is to make an upstream Makefile that does the righv ghiun.
<ierskq> Wnd then to share that for both types of packwfimg.
<iersia> That way in it needs to be acjksygd, it only neeas to ys zdjusted in one plwce.
<anzegketh> I agree
<agzenleth> now I need to think of a way to deyinw upstream build svstem.
<persia> ri Makgfile?
<folip> can I debuild an i386 paciage on an wmd64 systej?
<yklimonda> yes
<perria> Uk, no.
<filik> ;)
<persia> One can ufe sbuild or 'builder to beneraee i386 packahes ok an amd64 system.
<filio> you gmt me confksed a bit :P
<persia> One cannot use debuild alome
<dnzvnketh> pexsia:  xo a build soiething is somgthing lihe a rtandard cknfig aid makefile
<pqrsia> anzenkedj: Sure.  Or sxtup.py or buiod.xmo, or...
<anzdvketh> ugh upstteam author refuses
it's just sources and destinations, and doesn't user the actual details. <anzenketh> ok it done right previously how does the know what permitions to give file? It uses the permissions from the source. Later dh_fixperms goes though and tries clean up. <anzenketh> ahh ok time for me to learn the CDBS <persia> * currently against for new packaging : rules.tiny achieves the same goals, and is easier to debug <anzenketh> ok so how would I compile a c file it has one c it needs to compile <persia> that happens in file? yes %prep it has %setup -q and a make hdactl-hup <persia> Ugh. <persia> Well, you can do that by adding an rule to But the way do is to make Makefile that does the right thing. to share that for both types of packaging. That way it needs to be adjusted, it needs to be adjusted in one place. <anzenketh> agree <anzenketh> now I need to think of a way to define upstream build system. Makefile? <filip> can I an i386 package an system? yes Um, no. ;) <persia> One can use sbuild or pbuilder to generate i386 on an amd64 system. <filip> you got me confused a <persia> cannot use debuild <anzenketh> persia: so a something something like a standard makefile anzenketh: or or... ugh upstream author refuses
 it's just sources and destinatIons, and doeSn't boTheR thE uSer wIth tHe actual implemENtatIon details.
<anzenketh> ok gOod thAt MEans MOsT of it Was done RIgHT PreViOuSly
<AnZEnKeth> hOw dOes the aMahi.instalL knOw What permitioNS tO give file?
<pErsIa> It uses the pErmIssionS fRom THe souRce.  later Dh_fixpERms goeS though anD tRIes to cLEan up.
<anZENkEth> aHh ok time for me to leARn THe CDBS
<persia> WhY?
 * persiA cURrENTly RecOmmends agaInSt CDBs For new pACkAGINg : rULes.tiny achievEs the same goALs, aNd is eaSiEr tO Debug
<aNzenkEtH> Ok
<aNzenketh> so hOw woUld I compiLe a c fiLE
<anzenkETh> it has One c fiLe iT neEds tO CoMpIle
<PeRSia> aNd ThaT ComPilation HaPpEns in The.sPEC FIle?
<aNzeNketH> yes iN %prep it has a %seTup -Q and A MakE hdacTl-hup
<PersIa> ugh.
<peRsia> WeLl, you CaN do that by adding An ovErride_dh_aUto_BuIld: RuLe to dEBian/ruLes
<PerSia> But tHe *betteR* Way To DO IT iS to make an upstream MAkEFIlE that doeS the riGHt ThINg.
<persia> anD thEn to SHAre thAt foR BoTh types oF packaGInG.
<pErsia> ThAt Way if iT nEedS to Be adjUSted, It only Needs to bE adjuSTed in one place.
<aNZenketh> I agree
<ANzENKeTH> now i neEd to think of A way TO defIne uPStReaM Build SysteM.
<pERsIA> vi Makefile?
<filip> can i dEbuild An i386 paCkage on an amd64 sYstem?
<kklimONDA> yes
<persIa> Um, NO.
<fILip> ;)
<persia> One caN use sBuild or pbuILder to geNeratE i386 packagEs on an amd64 SYStem.
<filiP> yoU goT me ConFUSeD a bit :P
<persia> ONE CannOt Use debuIld Alone
<anZenKetH> peRsiA:  sO a build soMething iS sOmEtHiNg lIke a sTAndard coNfIg aNd MakEfile
<PErsia> aNzenkEth: SUrE.  OR SetUp.py or bUIlD.XMl, or...
<AnZeNketH> ugH uPstreAm auTHor Refuses
 it's just sources and des tinations,  anddoe sn' tboth er t he user with t h e ac tual implementation de tails .< anze n ke th> o k goodt ha t mea ns  m ost  o f  i t was  do ne righ t previous ly<a nzenketh> ho w  d oes the am ahi .install kno w w hat pe rm iti o ns to  gi ve fi le?
<p e rsia>It uses t he permis s ions fr o m  t he s ource.  Later dh_ f ix p erms goes thou gh and  t r ie s tocle an up.
<an ze nketh >  ahh ok ti m e for me to learn t he CDBS
<pe r sia > Why? 
* p e rsia c urren tl y  re commends ag ains t CDBS fo r newp ackagin g  : rule s.tiny  ac hie vest he  s ame  g o als ,  a ndi s e asier to  d eb ug
<a nzen k e t h > ok 
<a nzen keth>  so how would  Icomp i lea c f ile
< anze nk eth>it has  onecfile it needs t o co mpile
<pe rsi a>  An dthatc ompila tio n h appensin the. s pec  f i l e ?<anzenketh> yes in  % p r ep  it hasa %set u p-q and a ma ke  hd actl - h up
<p ersi a >Ugh.
<pe rsia>W el l,  you ca ndo tha tbyadd ing a n  ove rride_ dh_auto_ build :  rule to debia n /rules
<persi a >B u tt he * bet ter* way to  doi t is  tom ak e a n  upst reamMa k ef i le that does the ri gh t thin g.
<p ersia> And th en to shar e t hat forboth ty p es of packagin g.
<p ersia> Tha t  way ifit ne eds to b e adjuste d ,  it only  ne eds  to  be a dj usted in onep l ace. 
< anzenke th>  I agre e
< anz enk eth >now I nee d to thi nk  o faway  to d e fine ups tr eam  b uil d sys t em.
<p ersia > vi  M ak e fil e?
<fil i p> c an I  d eb uild  an  i 386 p acka g e o n an am d64 syste m?< kkli mo nd a> yes<persia> Um,no .
<filip>;) 
<p ersia> O ne can u se sbuild or pbuilder t o  genera tei386pack ages on a n a md64 s yst e m.
<fi lip> y ou go tmec o nfuse d abit  : P
<persia> O necanno tusedebuild  alone
<anzenketh> per sia:  so a bu ild  som e t hi ngi ss ome th i ngl i ke a standard c onfig andma k ef ile
<persi a > a nz enketh:  Sure. Or s e tup.pyor build. xml, or.. .<anz e n ket h> ugh ups tream au thor refu s es
 it's_just sources_and destinations, and doesn't_bother the_user_with the_actual_implementation details.
<anzenketh> ok_good that means_most of it was_done right previously
<anzenketh>_how_does the amahi.install know what permitions to give file?
<persia> It uses the permissions from_the_source. _Later_dh_fixperms_goes though and tries to_clean up.
<anzenketh> ahh ok time_for me_to learn the CDBS
<persia> Why?
 * persia currently_recommends_against CDBS for_new packaging : rules.tiny achieves the same goals, and_is easier to debug
<anzenketh> ok
<anzenketh> so_how would I_compile_a_c file
<anzenketh> it has_one c file it needs to_compile
<persia> And that compilation happens in_the.spec file?
<anzenketh> yes in %prep it has_a %setup -q and a make_hdactl-hup
<persia> Ugh.
<persia> Well, you can_do that_by adding an override_dh_auto_build: rule_to debian/rules
<persia> But_the *better*_way to do_it is to make an upstream_Makefile that does_the right thing.
<persia> And then to_share_that for both_types_of_packaging.
<persia> That_way if it_needs_to be_adjusted,_it only needs to be adjusted_in_one place.
<anzenketh> I agree
<anzenketh> now I need_to think of a_way_to define upstream build_system.
<persia> vi Makefile?
<filip> can I_debuild an i386 package on an_amd64 system?
<kklimonda>_yes
<persia> Um,_no.
<filip> ;)
<persia> One can use sbuild or pbuilder to generate i386_packages on an amd64 system.
<filip> you_got me confused a_bit :P
<persia>_One_cannot use debuild_alone
<anzenketh>_persia: _so a build something is something like_a standard_config and makefile
<persia> anzenketh: Sure. _Or setup.py or build.xml,_or...
<anzenketh>_ugh upstream author refuses