Re: [Linuxcoe-devel] Update on packaging

[Bruno C. <Bru...@hp...>]

Louis Bouchard said on Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 08:54:21AM +0200:

> > Why would prevent using the following:
> >=20
> > perl -pi -e 's/^apache.*//' /etc/sudoers
> >=20
> > I put it in the spec file, and it seems to work fine.
> > (except it doesn't remove the comments ;-)
> >=20
>=20
> I would not put it in the .spec file for two reasons :
>=20
>   1) It goes against the best practices of loading the .spec file with
> scripts.

Humm. Any reference ?
(I personaly know a lot of spec files that uses scripts, even inlined in
the %pre/%post sections)

I agree with you that it should be done upstream, but in the meanwhile,
it's better to do it in the spec, than to let a file overloaded
especially the sudoers one (security concerns)

>   2) It puts distribution specifics in the .spec file which means that
> the .spec file needs to be very distribution specific.

Eh, no :-)
That perl line is extremely generic, and works for all distro (even non
rpms one).

> > However in the code it seems to be linuxcoe-sysdes and
> > linuxcoe-sysdes-docs.
> > Did I forget something ? Coudl someone indicate which one is the right
> > one please.
>=20
> I think that you're working on outdated .spec files ! Here is the naming
> convention as I noted it from the minutes of the core meeting :
>=20
> oe-sd-content-dist-ver      version/targetdist/release
> _________________________________________________________________________=
__________
> linuxcoe-sd-base            -   4.0.rhel4-1    (only installs on rhel)
> linuxcoe-sd-base            -   4.0.sles10-1   (only installs on sles)
> linuxcoe-sd-data-rhel-all   -   4.0-1          (add rhel functionality to=
 any dist)
> linuxcoe-sd-data-sles-10    -   4.0-1          (add sles functionality to=
 any dist)
> linuxcoe-sd-data-fc  -4     -   4.0-1          (add sles functionality to=
 any dist)

Ah thanks I hadn't that with me :-(
BTW, all those spec file are similar (I checked them before starting) so
it's not a big issue in fact, just that I had'nt the right name.

However my first point is still valid:

linuxcoe-sd-base !=3D linuxcoe-sysdes as in the source tree. So there is
still a mismatch on names between what we want for packages and what we
have in the upstream code.

> Any 'systemdesigner-{something}' .spec file should no longer be used and
> should actually be removed from the CVS tree, but I'm not sure if I can
> to that.

Yes you can !
cvs remove is your friend ;-)

What is missing in CVS is cvs mv :-(
>=20
> > Also for additional Distro support what about
> > [systemdesigner|linuxcoe-sysdes]-[addon|plgin]-distroname
> >=20
> > e.g.: linuxcoe-sysdes-plugin-fedora or linuxcoe-sysdes-addon-fedora.
> >=20
> > WDYT ?
> >=20
>=20
> Not sure if it is required, since distribution specific identification
> is already provided in the main package name.

If we already agreed on -data- it's ok for me. Will just use that.

Thanks for the feedback Louis,
Bruno.
--=20
Linux Profession Lead EMEA  / Open Source Evangelist \        HP C&I EMEA I=
ET
http://www.mondorescue.org / HP/Intel Solution Center \  http://hpintelco.n=
et
Des infos sur Linux?  http://www.HyPer-Linux.org      http://www.hp.com/lin=
ux
La musique ancienne?  http://www.musique-ancienne.org http://www.medieval.o=
rg