On Sunday 02 October 2005 09:28 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 20:48:27 -0400 Dave Nebinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > | So yeah, things are pretty complicated due to the upstream build > | system expectations. > > I suggest hitting upstream with a cluebat until they make a proper > build system.
Their build system suits their purpose - distribute a LAMP-like system for the foundation of their web application. I'm sure it will keep them from getting distracted from questions like 'zimbra works for postfix 2.2 but breaks for 2.2.3'; they provide it all and to use it you're normally stuck with their 3rd party binaries at the version/patch level they give you. So no matter how hard or how long I was going to hit them with the cluebat, they're not going to bend. Their distribution is structured as follows: /opt/zimbra /opt/zimbra/bin /opt/zimbra/conf ... /opt/zimbra/postfix /opt/zimbra/postfix/bin /opt/zimbra/postfix/etc ... /opt/zimbra/tomcat /opt/zimbra/tomcat/bin /opt/zimbra/tomcat/conf ... Yada yada yada. The alterations to get it to fit under a regular distribution make the resulting ebuild pretty large. All for the goal of extracting two web applications and some configuration info. Go figure. > | 2. Do I create a single eclass, i.e. zimbra.eclass, to represent an > | eclass for a specific package or do I generate multiple eclasses > | based upon functionality? > > Well... If it's really an eclass for a whole package, it may not be > worth packaging the thing at all. That's the rub. Create eclass(es) to make a single ebuild less complex, or skip the eclasses and have a larger ebuild. > | a /var/db/pkg query system, > > Yick! Bad bad bad idea. Yeah, I know. But how else do you answer the question "Hey, Portage, where did you really install that my.cnf file?" Obviously the system admin is free to move the my.cnf file or even use a different file/path altogether. But at least it would give me a starting value to use at compile time... -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
