Re: [Ltib] _rpmfilename

[Stuart Hughes]

Hi Aaron,

What you suggest is possible, but is a corner case that I don't think 
it's worth the potential fall-out to implement.

So many other programs (aside from LTIB) assume that the binary rpm is 
%{name}-%{version}-%{release}._arch_.rpm that I think it may cause more 
problems than it solves if you diverge from this convention.

I think your best bet is just to live with the fact that the pristine 
tarball has a slightly odd naming convention and work on the bases of 
the patches/binary rpm you product produce a more conventional 
(predictable) result.

Maybe it's worth asking the maintainer of SeaMAC to change his tarball?

Regards, Stuart

address@hidden wrote:
> I have a package I'm integrating into my LTIB tree, and the tarfile uses a
> style of naming that is not conventional.  This is probably not so
> important, but I was wondering if it would be possible to add support for
> something like the _rpmfilename macro in the ltib script when it comes
> time to check for a pre-built rpm and for the creation of patch files.
>
> The tarfile I'm working with is:
>
> SeaMAC_0.98.1.tar.gz
>
> It expands to a directory tree whose base is:
>
> seamac/
>
> I figured out that I needed to add
>
> %Prep
> %setup -n seamac
>
> to my .spec file to have the build directory recognized.  Beyond that, I
> wanted to see if I could change the name of the output binary package file
> name from the default
>
> SeaMAC-0.98.1-1.ppc.rpm
>
> to
>
> SeaMAC_0.98.1-1.ppc.rpm
>
> (with the underscore), just to match the format of the .tar.gz file name. 
> Using either the _rpmfilename or the _build_name_fmt macro in the %Files
> section of my .spec file, I was able to accomplish this.
>
> %Files
> %define _rpmfilename %{ARCH}/%{NAME}_%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.%{ARCH}.rpm
>
> I ran into a separate problem then however, since the ltib script was
> searching for the .rpm file with the dash and not the underscore, and so
> this package was being rebuilt every time I ran ltib, because it wasn't
> finding the .rpm file created in the previous run.  I noticed that there
> could potentially be support for this if the ltib script searched for the
> _rpmfilename macro in the .spec file.  Also, it might be nice if the patch
> files that are created could check for this as well, and instead of
>
> SeaMAC-0.98.1-1254860786.patch
>
> be
>
> SeaMAC_0.98.1-1254860786.patch
>
> depending on if _rpmfilename or _build_name_fmt or some other similar type
> macro were defined in the .spec file.  I don't know if added flexibility
> would be useful here, or if it's just bad naming conventions to begin
> with.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LTIB home page: http://ltib.org
>
> Ltib mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/ltib