Hi, (let me say, based on your answers I have difficulties in understanding how possibly your first package can be so good :) )
>I installed into debian/package because "man dh_auto_install" told me >that "[...]the files are installed into debian/package/ if there is only >one binary package. In the multiple binary package case, the files are >instead installed into debian/tmp/ [...]". >Although there is no reason given why it should be debian/package in one >case and debian/tmp in the other. What's the difference? well, first there is a dh_auto_install step, where everything is moved to debian/tmp (via DESTDIR), and then a dh_install where packages are split (you mention an exception of the rule, and I agree with you on that point) >I overrode dh_auto_install because that is where "normally" (when using >autotools for example) the "make install" stage of the process is >executed, right? true >And the "ninja install" command would be my equivalent of that "make >install". >After that, I thought, dh_install could be used to install files that >were not picked up by the call to make (or ninja in my case). true >If that is not the case, what difference does overriding dh_install make >in contrast to overriding dh_auto_install? Both seem to produce a >working package for me. actually you are completely right, but I guess is a matter of taste :) Let me assume in the future you will like to split the package, that way I guess you might just tweak the dh_install and nothing more (but as soon as there is no automatic install by running "make install" they are both equivalent) >Also, the command you proposed would also install into >debian/gnome-twitch, but at the top you said I should be installing into >debian/tmp? I'm a little confused ;) I guess the politically correct way is: install in dh_auto_install everything into debian/tmp, and add an .install file to make sure files are moved into dh_install. that way a future package split will be easier (this is how I would do it, but if you don't want to do I can live happy to) >While writing an answer to this, I just realized that make also takes >the -C option, I didn't know that before. >So yes, that would probably be a good idea, I'll do that. let me know whenever you have something to look at :) (the above discussion is obviously not a showstopper, because I guess it is just a matter of knowing how your package will evolve) cheers, G.
