2008-08-02

Minimal debian/rules for dh7+dpatch

I got a new package to start from scratch (amule-emc, ITP) so I wanted to try debhelper 7. In need of patching upstream source code, I used my old friend dpatch, but then started to have some problems putting things together; so, here below is the minimal debian/rules to use dh7+dpatch:


#!/usr/bin/make -f
include /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make

build: build-stamp
build-stamp: patch-stamp
      dh build
      touch $@

clean:
      dh clean

%:
      dh $@

Thanks to jcristau and noshadow from #debian-devel@OFTC for opening my eyes ;)

Edited: thanks to Joey's comment, I was able to reduce it again down to:


#!/usr/bin/make -f

include /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make

build: patch-stamp
       dh build

clean: unpatch
       dh clean

%:
       dh $@
a

4 comments:

  1. UnknownAugust 2, 2008 at 12:55 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousAugust 2, 2008 at 12:58 PM

    AFAICS, the explicit clean target is not needed.

    Since the patch target has its own patch-stamp, there's really no need to use a build-stamp (dh build will avoid re-reunning any build commands if the build target is called multiple times).

    Arn't you missing a call to the unpatch target? Maybe the clean target is actually needed, to depend on unpatch?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sandro TosiAugust 3, 2008 at 10:36 AM

    thanks Joey for the comment! The explicit clean target is because I need an unpatch dep (missing, you spotted it) and since dh build is smarter than my, I was able to reduce the debian/rules down to (editing the original post):

    #!/usr/bin/make -f

    include /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make

    build: patch-stamp
    dh build

    clean: unpatch
    dh clean

    %:
    dh $@

    ReplyDelete
  4. tylerAugust 8, 2008 at 11:46 AM

    Actually, you should be able to reduce that to:
    ---
    #!/usr/bin/make -f
    %:
    dh $@

    include /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make
    build: patch-stamp
    clean: unpatch
    ---
    and get the same results.

    ReplyDelete