User forums > General (but related to Code::Blocks)
Ubuntu Packaging
Ademan:
hrm, i didn't realize that makefile dependencies referred to actual files, but hey, guess i have more to learn about makefiles as well.
As far as the fakeroot v pbuilder thing, I thought that pbuilder was the correct method, but of course, i may be mistaken again :-/ Anyways I'm working on getting it to package.
By the way, I think i just realized why pbuilder is kind of preferred, because it creates a sort of fake environment (much like fakeroot i assume) where you don't actually have ANYTHING, no packages are assumed to exist, only the ones that are in the debian/control. Maybe fakeroot does this too, i dunno. Either way, what about the g++ 3.4 issue? Someone i asked about it mentioned there may be a problem building with a newer g++, is there? or would it be ok for me to use 4.1?
Thanks for putting up with the stupid questions,
-Dan
cstudent:
Well I've been building it fine for the nightly builds since last summer. You do realize there is an Ubuntu .deb offered for download in the nightly builds? If you use Mandrav's debian files "as is" then it will want to use g++ 3.4 because in the control file's build depends section it ask for libstdc++6-dev. I actually change this to libstdc++6-4.0-dev and build it using g++ 4.0.3. I also use a chroot environment to build, but I'm not using pbuilder. I use the command `dpkg-buildpackage -D -b -us -uc` to build the .deb. I don't need fakeroot because I am root in my chroot.
I have thought about trying to get Codeblocks into the Ubuntu repos myself but haven't pursued it too much because I, like Mandrav, think it would be best to wait until they (the developers) feel they have a stable release. So I was waiting. I did check into it and saw that someone had tried to maintain a package for Debian in the early part of last year but they didn't do much with it. Plus waiting has given me the time to learn more about Debian packaging and I'm still learning. As far as Codeblocks looking for a maintainer, when they feel the time is right to worry about that, I too would like to put my name on the list of applicants.
Edit: I would also love to get a glimpse of the new debian dir Mandrav if that would be possible. If it's not top secret or something. :)
mandrav:
I never said fakeroot is better than pbuilder :). I know pbuilder is preferred for the reasons you described.
But fakeroot is easier to use if you just want to get a package out. For packages to enter the official repositories, pbuilder (or chroot) must be used though.
About g++, C::B builds with either version. Make your pick ;).
mandrav:
--- Quote from: cstudent on January 26, 2007, 12:50:24 pm ---Edit: I would also love to get a glimpse of the new debian dir Mandrav if that would be possible. If it's not top secret or something. :)
--- End quote ---
It's not top-secret :). I just haven't committed it, although I have it ready since a few months now, just because the current debian dir creates a single package which is easier for users to locate and install (for nightly builds).
I was just saving it for when we would be ready to apply for inclusion in Ubuntu's repositories :).
But it you want I could commit the new dir. I have no problem with that.
cstudent:
No, I think it would be better to wait Mandrav until you are ready to commit the changes. One package to install is much easier right now. Is there some way I could obtain it without you committing it? Like email or ftp? I'm just interested in viewing it and maybe playing around with building the new packages for the practice.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version