List:MySQL++« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Remi Collet Date:March 19 2007 6:13pm
Subject:Re: RPM packaging and library versioning
View as plain text  
Warren Young a écrit :
> Remi Collet wrote:
>>
> I would like to minimize the differences as much as possible.

Good idea.

>> %{!?rebake:%define rebake 0}
>> ...
>> %if %{rebake}
>> BuildRequires: bakefile = 0.2.0 %endif
> 
> We no longer require rebaking in the RPM build process.  It caused too
> many problems, without a great enough potential reward.

Yes.
As you can see, it's only an optional step (disabled by default)
I put this to build 2.2.1 with soname patch (will be remove in 2.2.2)

> 
> 
>> Release:    2%{?dist}
> 
> I guess that variable becomes something like 'fc7' when built in the
> Fedora build system?  If that's right, and it's empty normally, I'll
> merge that difference into my copy.

Yes (could be fc6, fc7 for Fedora and el4, el5 for EPEL)

> 
>> Patch0:     mysql++-2.2.1-bkl.patch
> 
> What is this patch?  Should I apply it to the repository?

Only to add the so_version in the mysql++.bkl.
Of course should be present in 2.2.2.

> 
>> BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u}
>> -n)
> 
> I guess this is a Fedora convention?  I'm hesitant to adopt it
> immediately, but it looks like it will work on any system.  Is that right?

Yes, to allow multi-build at the same time on the "builder" machine.
Should work on all distro.

> 
>> make %{?_smp_mflags}
> 
> Is there a reason you're not using %{__make} ?  I thought you were
> supposed to use these command aliases wherever possible.

No reason (just not "required"). I've chance it

> 
>> # correct bad perms to avoid rpmlint warning
>> chmod -x  lib/common.h
> 
> That's just a mistake in the tarball.  You can remove this from your
> spec file after the next version is released.

Yes, thanks

> 
>> cp -R doc/refman/html/ doc/html/refman
>> cp -R doc/userman/html/ doc/html/userman
> 
> That breaks the hyperlinks from the user manual into the reference
> manual.  If this reorganization is required by Fedora, we can talk about
> changing the way the manuals are generated so they use that directory
> structure.  If this is just cosmetic, please take this out of your spec
> file; it would be a pointless difference.

Done.
It was just to avoid packaging the build files (Makefile, mktxt, ...)

> 
>> %files
>> %doc LICENSE README doc/README.mysql++
> 
> I removed README.mysql++.  That file is only intended to be the README
> for the -manuals package.  It just points people to further sources of
> information.  I've renamed it to README.manuals to make this clearer.

Ok.

> 
>> %files devel
>> %doc doc/README.devel README.examples doc/examples HACKERS Wishlist
> 
> HACKERS is only useful in the tarball, the -src RPM, and the svn
> repository.  I've removed it from this list.
> 
Ok.


Thank's for the review.
Regards.
Thread
Re: RPM packaging and library versioningJack Eidsness8 Mar
  • Re: RPM packaging and library versioningWarren Young8 Mar
    • Re: RPM packaging and library versioningRemi Collet8 Mar
      • Re: RPM packaging and library versioningWarren Young16 Mar
        • Re: RPM packaging and library versioningJack Eidsness16 Mar
          • Re: RPM packaging and library versioningWarren Young17 Mar
            • Re: RPM packaging and library versioningRemi Collet18 Mar
              • Re: RPM packaging and library versioningWarren Young19 Mar
                • Re: RPM packaging and library versioningJack Eidsness19 Mar
                  • Re: RPM packaging and library versioningRemi Collet19 Mar
                    • Re: RPM packaging and library versioningJack Eidsness19 Mar
                  • Re: RPM packaging and library versioningWarren Young19 Mar
                    • Re: RPM packaging and library versioningJack Eidsness19 Mar
                • Re: RPM packaging and library versioningRemi Collet19 Mar
                  • Re: RPM packaging and library versioningWarren Young19 Mar