Petr Sobotka wrote: > Hello, > > I'm starting to allow pkgbuild outputting IPS binaries.
As you probably are aware, there is no seralized form of an IPS package - so will your tool create the necessary "pkgsend" operations to create an IPS repo, or will it actually create the binary IPS repo containing the packages (which could then be copied to a HTTP server)? > Here are few ideas: > 1) Every spec file which use scripting will be bundled without it and > warning will be shown. What about spec files using standard RPM directives like %config, or %doc and the like - presumably these could be turned into actions (e.g. create a subpackage containing the action). > 2) Prefixes as SFE, OSOL, SUNW will be omitted. But packages will go > to specified authority - for spec-files-extra I suggest using > SFE, cause > spec-files-extra is quite long and has '-' inside... > I think that this is purpose of authorities. > > 3) All subpackages (-devel, -docs, ...) will have only 1 dependency - > parent package. > This makes a bit strange order of installing packages, but I want > to somehow > mark package that is sub-package. Cause it doesn't make sense to have > sdl-devel without main sdl package... It's possible using IPS to have a empty packages that serve as a "container" or "parent" package. This seems like it would map directly to the concept of RPM subpackages. What would be the install/remove order in this case? -jhf-
