I also run Fedora Core, and was disappointed to see that the latest gramps
that one could yum install was 2.0. Also, it wasn't clear what other
packages gramps needs (or could use). Here is what I'd like to see, in
order of preference:
1. Whomever is updating gramps for Fedora Core needs to do it more
quickly, and for FC4, FC5, and FC6. How can we make this happen?
2. We could create an alternate Yum repository, but that will require
someone to stay on top of the releases (and it might as well be the person
doing it for #1).
3. Update the spec file that comes with gramps, and describe how to use it
on the webpage.
More comments below.
On Wed, December 27, 2006 3:56 am, Glenn McKechnie wrote:
> It uses python-2.4.4-1.fc6, python-2.4.3-9.FC5 and not python 2.5 so the
> "Database is not portable" warning pops up. - is this introducing an
> unneccesary complication to the gramps developer/bug/user base.
> The warning is obvious, the instructions to create a portable database
> are clear (and work!) - perhaps this is a non-issue, but I'm sure no-one
> wants any extra work?
> How should the package be named, to prevent conflicts from 'official' rpms
> (if and when they may be built),
> seperately as...
> gramps-2.2.4-1.fc6.noarch.rpm ?
> gramps-2.2.4-1.fc5.noarch.rpm ?
IMO, they should be called those two names. The way that the yum
repositories work, they should be in seperate places anyway.
> Installing this package requires the user to bypass the gpg signature
> check, a quick temporary mod. to the /etc/yum.conf file resolves this
> issue (assuming I'm to be trusted) however is this asking too much of
> the target audience? How do you tell them as part of the installation
> process, considering the idea of rpm's is to 'do it all with no user
> (the workaround is gpgcheck=1 becomes gpgcheck=0 , but only
> temporarily of course)
You don't have to disable the pgpcheck, you just need to sign it. So, yes,
you are asking too much of the user. Let's make this easy.
> Perhaps the download could be redirected from an appropriate
> http://gramps-project.org/download/fedora page where this/other issues
> could be outlined beforehand, it wouldn't catch all but it may reduce
> them, and act as a belated 'issues' page for those that end up on the
> mailing list.
> Should I append an appropriate comment under %description in the spec file
> or perhaps just use the Vendor tag in the spec file eg:
> Packager: Me <me@...> for http://gramps-project.org
> Changelog notes are updated accordingly.
> This should help to seperate the official and unofficial builds?
This shouldn't matter. As long as the official and unofficial are being
made with the same (or very similar) .spec files, they should be drop-in
> It was built using the spec file from gramps-2.2.3-2.fc7.src.rpm, it
> required a couple of mods to take care of an unpackaged file -
> I attempted to see if this file was still used. It was included in
> the gramps-2.0.11-5.fc6.noarch.rpm but a quick substitution and restart
> didn't seem to make use of it, even an lsof didn't report it. Is it cruft
> or did it just allude my sluething skills?
Don or Alex may have to comment on this.
> So many questions - *Sigh*
I'm glad you brought this up, as the yum install has made gramps trivial
to install, but we have to keep the spec file and repositories up-to-date.
> SCO delenda est
> Getting there is only half as far as getting there and back.
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
> Gramps-devel mailing list
Douglas S. Blank
Associate Professor, Bryn Mawr College
Office: 610 526 601