From: Arnold K. <ar...@ar...> - 2007-08-25 14:12:51
|
Am Samstag, 25. August 2007 schrieb Michael Gerdau: > > > b) Which impact does using scons have on creating rpms ? > > > Doesn't rpm rely on the autotools ? > > > Or does rpm use scons when scons is there ? > > ? rpm has almost nothing to do with the build system a source-package > > uses. > AFAICT this is not entirely correct, because... > > rpm uses yet another kind of configuration-files to make the package > > configure and build and install (to some sandbox-destination?) and than > > grabs all the resulting files. This process is similar from rpm to deb = to > > gentoos ebuild-scripts. > > ...rpm's spec files _do_ indeed describe how to invoke the package's build > process. However some research here reveals that while rpm seems to defau= lt > to using the autotools it has the capability to invoke whatever tools are > required to build a package. > > > And if using scons (or even anything but auto*) would make problems with > > rpm-packages, well, firstly we don't do the packaging so these problems > > aren't ours :-) > Despite the smiley this is a rather unfriendly remark. It kind of is, yes. > _IF_ moving to scons would have broken creating rpms (which is does not), > than that move would indeed have created the need to maintain the autotool > chain outside of the project. Well, if a rather general tool to create packages relies on only one=20 buildsystem to use, it would be _very_ limited. After all even the kernel=20 doesn't use auto*. And as a lot of programmers and project-bosses will tell you: taking=20 responsibility for binary packages adds a whole lot of more problem, which = is=20 why most free software projects take only the responsibility for the=20 source-packages and provide the binaries only as a convenience for the user= =2E=20 Every bug report is answered by "Did you compile the source yourself? If no= t,=20 please do it and check again." That is mainly just to give the devs more time for programming instead of=20 dealing with packages for the several thousands of different systems. So, yes the remark above is kind of unfriendly. But it is necessary to rese= rve=20 at least some of ppalmers spare time for programming all the new features w= e=20 want to see in ffado instead of him trying to get his head around building= =20 bin-packages for SuSE, Redhat, Mandriva, debian, ubuntu(studio), gentoo,=20 slackware, etc... So, while providing a general buildsystem that works on as many platforms a= s=20 needed (no need for ffado on mac or win:), providing binary packages is not= =20 our concern. And if some distribution uses a tool that only works with auto= *=20 than its their own fault. After all, that is clearly not the case. Even if rpm's spec is optimized fo= r=20 auto*, it probably never relied on it since quite some of the linux-basic=20 packages don't use auto* (some still use make though). > Anyway, this is a moot point as are all other remarks I have regarding the > rest of your post (which is why I leave them out :) Well, now you got me interested! What are the other remarks? Have fun, Arnold =2D-=20 visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/ =2D-- Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send= me=20 to all your contacts. After a month or so log in as root and do a rm / -rf. Or ask your=20 administrator to do so... |