Re: Moving to a more distro/host agnostic setup for thecanonicalspec files.

[Christian Lohmaier <cloph cup uni-muenchen de>]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 05:07:42AM +0100, Spider wrote:
> begin  quote
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 13:04:05 +0100
> Christian Lohmaier <cloph cup uni-muenchen de> wrote:
> 
> ... message edited to be sparse....

I als well strip all the things I have nothing to add to (agree with it)

>> <SNIP> 
> 
> > Note that for this the person who installs the package must set his
> > rpm_install_path to include the bindir to gconftool (eg.
> > /opt/gnome2/bin). An alternative would be (like I did in the packages
> > build for my Caldera- to specify %{_bindir}/gconftool-2 ..
> > I don't really know which of these is the better solution.
> 
> This is where we could provide our own macros, but those cannot be
> distributed separately, since a .spec in a tarball must depend on
> something else in that case. And we dont want to make everyone who uses
> rpm -tb <>  to install our custom scripts, or configure their system in
> a special way. Thats bad practice.

So in this case it's better to use %{_bindir}/gconftool-2
 
> Can we also make sure that our .spec's follow the FHS?
 
Yes. At least I think that my packages follow the FHS :-)
But I don't think that it's the spec that guarantees cpmliance with the
FHS, it's the packages's rpmmacros that do the work.
Eg in the spec just %configure is specified, the values for prefix,etc.
come from the packager's settings...

> > > scrollkeeper is also an issue for some.
> > 
> > yes, theres a %verify(options) attribute that is meant to be placed in
> > the %files section:
> > one can check owner, group, mode, md5, size, maj, min, symlink, mtime.
> > so one could e.g. specify
> > %verify(owner group) file
> > to check only for owner and group of the file or in turn use
> > %verify(not owner group) file 
> > to check everything but owner and group
> 
> So we would assure the %verify(not size not md5 not mtime)  for all the
> scrollkeeper generated parts? thats an okay solution, I think.
 
Since this would only apply to the scrollkeeper-package itself, there's
no reason why not use this option.
 
> > > General packaging guidelines?  are there any? How do we as the Gnome
> > > project want the distributors to treat Gnome packages?
> > 
> > No, there's a lack of those. I personally would like to use FHS (where
> > this applies), e.g prefix would be /opt/gnome2, sysconfdir
> > /etc/opt/gnome2,...
> 
> This is something we need to put together, preferrably :)

I'd love to see some official guidelines for this on www.gnome.org

> > > The gconf schema interpretions might be necessary to make a general
> > > "Gnome .spec" macro for, since they do require some trickery, the
> > > default process is to violate the building system, and then force
> > > itself down into the deep recesses of the packagers discretion to
> > > find exactly what schema files are installed during the process.  
> > 
> > That's right, but since I always did a fake install to see if every
> > file that is meant to be installed is really in the %files section
> > this has not really been a plus in effort.
> 
> Yes, but when a package maintainer updates/adds a .schema, can we make
> it work or will the .spec be broken for the first package release
> afterwards until we get bugreports?  

We can make it work by introducing some trickery. It's possible to
create a 'all_schemas.list' during %install (using find & basename or
something similar) and install this one along with the regular files.
During %post one could read that file and delete it after installing the
schemas mentioned therein.
 
> > > (that behaviour is bad for actions such as "rpm -tb <some.tar.bz2>")
> > 
> > Not if the spec-file is created correctly. Why would a 
> > "rpm -ba specfile" work better than a "rpm -tb tarball"?
> 
> Not really, but all .spec's arent well-written, that was my point :) 
> Lots have changed since the pre-2.0 days when I was one of those who
> wrote and verified .specs, I know.. but burned child... ya, whatever :)

:-)
 
> > > portability, maintainability and generic items are a great thing..
> > > Too bad that theres no way to include a special package of "gnome
> > > macros" for .spec.. .or none that I know of, someone here might know
> > > better.
> > 
> > How would such a gnome-macro look like?
> %gconf-install
> <find .spec, find gconftool-2, install, check all is ok and go>
   ^^^^^^^^^^
   I assume that this should read .schemas
This is hard, at least I don't know a descent way to pick the newly
installed schemas only. And 'find gconftool-2' is not really the way I#d
like things to work..

> > I already use a ~/.rpmmacros file so that I don't have to set Packager
> > or Distribution manually and I use different 'presets' that I use for
> > gnome-packages (prefix set to /opt/gnome2 ...) and for regular
> > packages(prefix is /usr).
> > Just appending these Macros to this file is enough to make use of
> > them... But maybe I got you wrong.
> 
> Well, you got me wrong, since that would require that anyone who wants
> to use the simplicity of rpm -tb <tarball> would have to include our
> "helper" macros into their ~/.rpmmacros ... not a good solution. 


> What I meant to express was a regret of  inheritance in the .spec
> system, we cannot provide a general include in say "gconf" that would
> provide the .spec helper scripts that all packages that depend on gconf
> can use...       or can we?

Interesting thought. I tink the only way to achieve this is to use
absolute paths for this helper-file.
To make sur that I did understand what you mean:
gconf.rpm contains a helper-file that includes the helper-macros we want
to use in our specs.
application.spec then contains a directive "inlcude gconf/helper-file"
or something.

I think something like
%define gconfhelper /path/to/gconfhelper
and then using %gconhelper 
should do the job. But this requires that /path/to/gconfhelper is known.

> > ciao
> toodles ;)
> 
> //Spider
> 
> 
> For reference: heres what I hacked up for Gentoo to use with .spec
> installation
> 
> gnome2_gconf_install() {
>         if [ -x ${ROOT}/usr/bin/gconftool-2 ]
>         then
>                 unset GCONF_DISABLE_MAKEFILE_SCHEMA_INSTALL
>                 export GCONF_CONFIG_SOURCE=`${ROOT}/usr/bin/gconftool-2
> --get-default-source`
>                 einfo "installing gnome2 gconf schemas" 
>                 cat ${ROOT}/var/db/pkg/*/${PN}-${PVR}/CONTENTS | grep
> "obj /etc/gconf/schemas" | sed 's:obj \([^ ]*\) .*:\1:' |while read F;
> do
>                         echo "DEBUG::gconf install  ${F}"
>                                 ${ROOT}/usr/bin/gconftool-2 
> --makefile-install-rule ${F}
>                 done
>         fi
>         # schema installation
> }
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> begin  .signature
> This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
> See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
> end



-- 
NP: nichts