Tony Nelson wrote:
At 8:44 PM -0700 9/14/05, Chris Grau wrote:
The RPM and spec file look pretty good. I'd like to see this make it
into Fedora Extras. At quick glance, the only changes the spec file
would need are,
- release tag should be 1 or 1%{?dist}, but I can see why the release
tag is what it is for the purposes of this post;
I think you are referring to the release being 1_GAN? The problem with
release tags is that RPM considers releases from different sources to be
comparable. If you build an RPM from mine and give it release 3, as the
next release, and then someone else does the same to your rpm and gives it
release 4, and I do to my own RPM and give it release 3, RPM will happily
compare the the release numbers as if it made sense to do so. Note that a
few of the Fedora packages have "_FC3" or "_FC4" at the end of their
release tag.
- build root should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n);
I take it you want the release to be part of the build root path?
I hadn't thought of using the username in the build root, as I'm using a
local build setup.
- Source should be Source0.
Hmm. Well, OK. According to the RPM docs, Source and Source0 are equivalent.
Yes, they are. Chris' comments are based on the packaging guidelines for
Fedora Extras (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines), which
are generally good practice things to do.
A release tag of "1%{?dist)" would expand to "1.fc4" for an FC4 build,
"1.fc3" for an FC3 build etc. on the Fedora Extras buildsystem.
Encoding the name/version/release/username in the buildroot is good
practice because it avoids clashes if you and other people are building
packages at the same time on the same system.
Source0 and Source are equivalent but Source0 is clearer if you ever
need to add multiple source files (Source0, Source1, Source2 etc.) for a
package.
Paul.
