Michel Salim wrote: > On 20/08/05, Paul Pogonyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > BTW, a question for you as a packager. I have a file `README-PACKAGERS' > > describing possible installation of Quarry with GNU Go (or anything else) > > already in the engines list. I'm completely unfamiliar with packaging > > system and now I wonder if it is possible within existing frameworks (Red > > Hat/Fedora, Debian, ...)? Not that I expect it to happen even if > > possible, it's not quite as important as configuring `httpd', for > > instance ;) > > Sounds possible - in the %post section of a RPM spec file you could > run a script that queries if GNU Go is installed, say, > > rpm -q gnugo > > which should return gnugo-3.6-3 (for example), and then it's just a > matter of parsing the output to determine the program version. > > Problem with this approach is that, it only works if the user > installed gnugo *before* installing quarry. > > How about having multiple packages - the quarry program in one > package, then have support packages like quarry-gnugo which would > depend on quarry and gnugo.
I don't, I'm not familiar with packages and I don't if it will be obvious enough for users. Ideally, users with both GNU Go and Quarry installed just automagically see GNU Go in the engine list, no matter the order of package installation. But I agree that doing the checks in both GNU Go and Quarry packages is clumsy especially since GNU Go is not the only engine out there. > Writing the configuration file would be easier if quarry itself > supports a non-interactive configuration-generating mode, like: > > quarry --gen-config "gnugo --mode gtp --quiet" > > /usr/share/quarry/quarry.cfg > > Thoughts? I'll likely do it for 0.1.17. Just don't want to delay the next version with more and more tasks, even if this one is not especially difficult to implement. Thanks for the advises. Paul
