Re: [Bacula-users] incomplete fc6 support in 2.0.1 bacula.spec
See src/platforms/contrib-rpm in the source package. On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 19:08 -0500, Charles Galpin wrote: > Thanks Scott! > > Understood about making it easier on the users and I commend that. In > that spirit, it's actually pretty hard to build anyway since it needs > specific choices made up front about what platform and database. A > very nice approach I have seen to this is to have a script that > generates a spec file based on environment variables set. To see > this in action, check out Simon Mudd's excellent postfix rpms. > > http://postfix.wl0.org/en/building-rpms/ > > I suspect this appraoch would also make the spec file simpler while > making building them easier for the user at the same time. > > hth > charles > > On Jan 21, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Scott Barninger wrote: > > > > The reason I go to the effort is for the users who download the > > package. > > If you don't take the time to research and require the specific > > package > > names (which vary by distribution often) then the user just gets a > > very > > unhelpful message stating that libSomeProgram.so.2 is required which > > prompts a message to the lists asking where to get that. Same with > > people who want to rebuild the source rpm and write because of compile > > errors due to missing packages. > - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] incomplete fc6 support in 2.0.1 bacula.spec
Hello Charles,
The bug you reference has been corrected in the cvs copy. And yes, the
spec file is getting rather noisy. Why do I do all of that? We could
simplify the spec substantially by removing all the platform stuff and
just let rpm itself do the dependency requirements to the libs
automatically. That is the way many distros and commercial companies
handle it. It is certainly easier for a maintainer.
The reason I go to the effort is for the users who download the package.
If you don't take the time to research and require the specific package
names (which vary by distribution often) then the user just gets a very
unhelpful message stating that libSomeProgram.so.2 is required which
prompts a message to the lists asking where to get that. Same with
people who want to rebuild the source rpm and write because of compile
errors due to missing packages.
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 18:34 -0500, Charles Galpin wrote:
> Hi Scott (and anyone else involved in maintaining the src.rpm)
>
> Just wanted to let you know that you need a couple of minor changes
> to the bacula.spec file from bacula-2.0.1-1.src.rpm to support fc6
> properly.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]# !diff
> diff bacula.spec bacula.spec.orig
> 129c129
> < %if ! %{rh7} && ! %{rh8} && ! %{rh9} && ! %{fc1} && ! %{fc3} && ! %
> {fc4} && ! %{fc5} && ! %{fc6} && ! %{wb3} && ! %{su9} && ! %{su10}
> && ! %{mdk}
> ---
> > %if ! %{rh7} && ! %{rh8} && ! %{rh9} && ! %{fc1} && ! %{fc3} && ! %
> {fc4} && ! %{fc5} && ! %{wb3} && ! %{su9} && ! %{su10} && ! %{mdk}
> 1093c1093
> < %if %{rh8} || %{rh9} || %{wb3} || %{fc1} || %{fc3} || %{fc4} || %
> {fc5} || %{fc6}|| %{mdk}
> ---
> > %if %{rh8} || %{rh9} || %{wb3} || %{fc1} || %{fc3} || %{fc4} || %
> {fc5} || %{mdk}
>
> This specfile is getting really ugly though. Are all these conditions
> really necessary?
>
> thanks
> charles
>
>
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
