Coda File System

Re: spec files, CVS

From: Jan Harkes <>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 18:42:09 -0400
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 10:33:20PM -0500, Jerry Amundson wrote:
> Is this going to be the direction for the lwp, rvm, and coda modules too?
> My reason for asking is I've been working on spec file changes for all 
> four, not realizing until today that CVS commits have been done. I'm adding 
> fairly involved changes for requirements, and feel that I'll be trying to 
> hit a moving target by continuing. (I'll subscribe to "changelog" to 
> prevent this in the future...) 

Possibly, but I shouldn't have much trouble merging, I would probably
simply replace my version of the spec files.

> Regarding independence from configure, I think this should be taken a step 
> further - have edit the spec file in the top of the source 
> tree (or move it there), and not under pkgs/tools. This is where "rpmbuild 
> -ta" expects it to "rpm directly from tarball", and has the benefit of 
> removing the need of the src.rpm. 

A released tarball is actually not a simple CVS checked out copy. I use
some scripts, which actually do a clean build first, and only construct
the tarball if that works.

i.e. something like the following,

(actually a bit more involved since I do this initial build in a
chrooted tree to make sure the build is as clean as possible).

    #!/bin/sh -e
    cvs checkout $comp
    cd $comp
    ./configure --prefix=/usr
    make distclean
    make dist

This results in a tarball that is copied over to a couple of machines
where I try to build the result on different distributions/OS's.

So as long as make distclean leaves the rpm.spec file around, and make
dist includes the spec file in the tarball we shouldn't have a problem
for people who try to build RPMs from the released source tarballs.
This is what that CVS commit tries to achieve.

> Let me know so I can submit my changes, or hold off and work with what I 
> have. 

I'd say, keep on trucking.

Received on 2006-04-16 18:44:09