[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: 1.36 again



On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 02:18:07PM -0500, Bill Rugolsky Jr. wrote:
> Makefile targets like these are useful for developers who are mucking
> around in a development tree, and just want a package of their current
> tree; the kernel targets are great for that.  End-users should prefer
> that the tarball contain a working distro-neutral spec file, so that
> they can just invoke rpmbuild:
> 
> 	rpmbuild -ta e2fsprogs-1.36.tar.gz
> 
> Unfortunately, naming conventions and macros differ just enought between
> the various RPM-based distros that plenty of packages have instead a
> foo.spec.in.  In e2fsprogs-1.36, the only configure macro is the version
> number, @E2FSPROGS_VERSION   :-(  IMHO, one should ship a .spec file with
> the correct version number, or at least a macro conditional that allows
> the user to do the following:
> 
> 	rpmbuild -ta --define 'version 1.36' e2fsprogs-1.36.tar.gz

The e2fsprogs.tar.gz tarball *does* come shipped with a e2fsprogs.spec
file that has the version number defined, so that "rpmbuild -ta
e2fsprogs-1.36.tar.gz" should work correctly, and has for quite some
time now.  

The e2fsprogs.spec.in file that has @E2FSPROGS_VERSION@ is there so
that the e2fsprogs.spec file can be built and included automatically
in the .tar.gz file when the util/gen-tarball script is executed.

E2fsprogs.spec *is* supposed to be a distro-neutral spec file, but I
don't regularly use an rpm-based distribution these days, so I am
depending on others to report bugs and suggest patches.  It would be
helpful though if people actually *tried* to use it as opposed making
incorrect assertions on the mailing list.  :-)

							- Ted


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]