Questions[packaging](server)

The default nginx package creates a symlink named default in the sites-enabled dir, which points to a default config file in sites-available. I'm currently creating a package for an app that sits on top of Nginx, and I want to remove or move away the default symlink, and replace it with the config file from my package. Ideally, in the event that my package is removed, the original default symlink will be restored.

I've been reading the manpage and examples of dpkg-divert, but I don't quite see that it can do this. Is this achievable with dpkg-divert, or do I have to think of another way?

We build .deb packages and host them in a local Debian APT Repository, which we then use Puppet to manage installs from.

However, there is surprisingly little written about building or managing an apt repository, so I fear we're overlooking some beautiful open-source solution. What do other startups use? Do they just scp the raw files from server to server? If so, how do they keep things tidy?

Or is this a question that Rails handles internally (e.g. as gems) so we're the only ones facing it? ;)

I'm in the position of needing to make a few RPMs at work, which is something fairly new to me.

I'd really love to hear which docs, tutorials. or presos have been useful for you for understanding:

a) how to make them well without making noobish mistakes

b) any other handy tricks that you would otherwise miss if you didn't spend a day poring over the man pages.

What's been the most helpful for you?

I'm coming from a developer background, so I'm comfortable with making and compiling software manually, and I've fiddled around with making formula for homebrew but rpm is a new, powerful and shiny tool to me.

Specifically, I want to build a package for debian/lenny using the latest uvc drivers. I can compile and install them, but I want them packaged in the normal debian fashion. I imagine I want to use make-kpkg somehow, but I don't know how. module-assistant seems no good, because that seems to only use sources available in debian.

Vendor binary package format selections appear to be determined by a form of Murphy's Law: all the distros you don't use have packages. (Corralary: there exists no distribution that satisfies your software stack's distribution dependencies).

Is this a matter of politics, or something deeper, that we haven't seen the emergence of a "build once, run anywhere" package format?