You are not logged in.

#1 2019-10-26 21:35:09

chrisdb
Member
Registered: 2019-09-12
Posts: 47

debmake vs dh_make

Hello,

I've been reading about creating my own .deb packages and I can't seem to find a descent answer of what exactly the difference is between debmake and dh_make..

Thx

Offline

#2 2019-10-26 21:56:28

twoion
ほやほや
Registered: 2015-08-10
Posts: 2,553

Re: debmake vs dh_make

dh_make is a much older tool, debmake is an attempt at modernizing. Use debmake if you need to.

This is the new debmake program written in Python.  This provides convenient command to make a Debian package from the upstream VCS/tarball/source-tree.

If you don't really need to build 'proper' deb packages and just want to get your software out of the door quickly, there's also <https://github.com/jordansissel/fpm>.


At the end of the river the sundown beams

Online

#3 2019-10-27 00:22:52

DeepDayze
Member
From: In Linux Land
Registered: 2017-05-28
Posts: 761

Re: debmake vs dh_make

twoion wrote:

dh_make is a much older tool, debmake is an attempt at modernizing. Use debmake if you need to.

This is the new debmake program written in Python.  This provides convenient command to make a Debian package from the upstream VCS/tarball/source-tree.

If you don't really need to build 'proper' deb packages and just want to get your software out of the door quickly, there's also <https://github.com/jordansissel/fpm>.

Also if you just want to make a quick and dirty package to install *only* on your system you can use checkinstall. This is useful for some things that do not have a lot of dependencies as the <make .config> scripts inside the source tree  may error out if you don't have some dependency installed. Usually installing  *-dev packages that contain the required deps will resolve that so the source application will build and then the deb built.


Real Men Use Linux

Offline

#4 2019-10-27 06:19:22

chrisdb
Member
Registered: 2019-09-12
Posts: 47

Re: debmake vs dh_make

DeepDayze wrote:
twoion wrote:

dh_make is a much older tool, debmake is an attempt at modernizing. Use debmake if you need to.

This is the new debmake program written in Python.  This provides convenient command to make a Debian package from the upstream VCS/tarball/source-tree.

If you don't really need to build 'proper' deb packages and just want to get your software out of the door quickly, there's also <https://github.com/jordansissel/fpm>.

Also if you just want to make a quick and dirty package to install *only* on your system you can use checkinstall. This is useful for some things that do not have a lot of dependencies as the <make .config> scripts inside the source tree  may error out if you don't have some dependency installed. Usually installing  *-dev packages that contain the required deps will resolve that so the source application will build and then the deb built.

I thought checkinstall was not supported anymore?

Offline

#5 2019-10-27 12:28:49

ohnonot
...again
Registered: 2015-09-29
Posts: 4,159
Website

Re: debmake vs dh_make

twoion wrote:

If you don't really need to build 'proper' deb packages and just want to get your software out of the door quickly, there's also <https://github.com/jordansissel/fpm>.

fpm:

Effing package management!

What a beautiful name!

Offline

#6 2019-10-28 06:56:42

chrisdb
Member
Registered: 2019-09-12
Posts: 47

Re: debmake vs dh_make

What do you guys think about GNU Stow?

Offline

#7 2019-10-28 07:13:31

twoion
ほやほや
Registered: 2015-08-10
Posts: 2,553

Re: debmake vs dh_make

chrisdb wrote:

What do you guys think about GNU Stow?

I used to use it.

I had a stowdir /usr/local/stow for my self-compiled applications (residing at /usr/local/stow/mutt-1.5, /usr/local/stow/foo-1.2.3 etc) and then could stow or unstow them into /usr/local/{bin,lib,share,doc}. It works very well.

I stopped because

a. I'm using Arch Linux now and their ports system is much more friendly and simpler then deb packaging, so I just write a PKGBUILD when I need it

b. Arch Linux already has a huge ports collection that can be used as simple as apt-get source --build <package>.

c. I do not want to keep unpacked software installed; it distorts the package manager's view of what actually is going on in the system. For example, you never know when you have to rebuild a software because its dependency got updated. With packages, that kind of tracking is easy, with just compiled software installed using stow, it is not. So: dependency tracking!


At the end of the river the sundown beams

Online

#8 2019-10-28 09:05:27

chrisdb
Member
Registered: 2019-09-12
Posts: 47

Re: debmake vs dh_make

twoion wrote:
chrisdb wrote:

What do you guys think about GNU Stow?

I used to use it.

I had a stowdir /usr/local/stow for my self-compiled applications (residing at /usr/local/stow/mutt-1.5, /usr/local/stow/foo-1.2.3 etc) and then could stow or unstow them into /usr/local/{bin,lib,share,doc}. It works very well.

I stopped because

a. I'm using Arch Linux now and their ports system is much more friendly and simpler then deb packaging, so I just write a PKGBUILD when I need it

b. Arch Linux already has a huge ports collection that can be used as simple as apt-get source --build <package>.

c. I do not want to keep unpacked software installed; it distorts the package manager's view of what actually is going on in the system. For example, you never know when you have to rebuild a software because its dependency got updated. With packages, that kind of tracking is easy, with just compiled software installed using stow, it is not. So: dependency tracking!

Funny, I'm also using arch smile I would only choose Debian because of the stable standard so I would only have to worry about the extras I install

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB