[00:54] Greetings humans. [00:54] Can someone explain the difference between a source and a binary Debian package? [00:54] I get the literal difference, but I don't get what each is used for exactly. === freeflying_away is now known as freeflying [02:11] seanz: a source package is used to create a binary package. a binary package is the thing you actually install with apt-get [02:11] seanz: a single source package can create multiple binary packages [02:11] Unless he's talking about a binary blob package? [02:11] oh... maybe. not sure [07:18] achiang: basically a source package is what a packager works with. it's a directory with source code and binaries and a debian directory containing scripts and metadata. a binary package is a .deb file that contains the results of a built source package [08:10] good morning === ara_ is now known as ara [15:59] highvoltage: yes, i was trying to explain that to whoever asked about the difference yesterday :) [16:03] achiang: cool [16:13] achiang: Thanks for the info. I'm trying to nail down what *exactly* I need to create. I'm packaging up a Java war file, essentially, but I want to "do it right" and probably build a source package and have that properly compiled to a binary package. [16:13] highvoltage: Thanks as well for your info. === j_f-f_ is now known as j_f-f === e11bits_ is now known as e11bits [18:07] So would you all recommend I build a source package, or compile my war file separately and skip straight to the binary package? [18:08] achiang, highvoltage: ^ ^ ^ [18:36] seanz: if you build a package only containing a war package, then you can't upload it to debian or ubuntu [18:37] seanz: you'll need a source package if you'd ever want to upload it to ubuntu or a PPA [18:55] highvoltage: That makes sense, but when I actually have both, and the changes file and the description file, I'm actually uploading them all at once, aren't I? Or am I solely uploading the source file? [18:55] Or source package. [19:25] seanz: you would upload the source package [19:26] highvoltage: So if I were also going to set up an apt server, would I want to set it up such that it automatically builds from source packages? [19:26] ...and let that generate the binary .deb upon upload? [19:29] seanz: depends what you want to do or what the point of that server is. if it's a build server, then you probably want that. if you just want an apt repository, it's fine having binary only or source only or both [19:31] highvoltage: Thanks for answering my questions. Technically, I could probably get away with having just an apt repository, but I'm thinking the most versatile way would be to have a build server. [19:31] I'm thinking that would keep the packaging process the most straightforward and unchanging. [19:31] seanz: easiest really is to upload to a PPA [19:32] https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA [19:32] highvoltage: Ok, checking the link. [19:32] might be better getting aquanted with that before investing in building your own build infrastructure [19:32] and the process of uploading there is very similar to uploading to debian/ubuntu, so you get a good start on how things work if you follow that [19:32] highvoltage: Good point, though the server we're building is for internal use only. I could potentially use a PPA for testing first. [19:33] seanz: *nod* [19:42] after I make a divert in the preinst, I should be able to drop a file on top of where the original was, right? [19:42] I'm either making a silly mistake or have forgotten how to do this [19:43] for example: dpkg-divert --package foo --add --rename /usr/foo.orig /usr/foo and then in my install file I drop in a new /usr/foo [19:43] (in my example I forgot the --divert arg but I have it in the preinst)