On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 14:56, Han Boetes wrote:
> > I just updated the skeleton-spec file and also made a new rpm with it,
> > just to make sure I didn't make any mistakes.
I don't see any advantage of packaging the three icons as one archive.
I use the following...
Source1: %{name}48.png
Source2: %{name}32.png
Source3: %{name}16.png
#icons
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%_liconsdir
cat %SOURCE1 > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%_liconsdir/%name.png
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%_iconsdir
cat %SOURCE2 > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%_iconsdir/%name.png
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%_miconsdir
cat %SOURCE3 > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%_miconsdir/%name.png
%files
%defattr(-,root,root)
%{_menudir}/%name
%{_liconsdir}/%name.png
%{_iconsdir}/%name.png
%{_miconsdir}/%name.png
I don't see how that's any worse than one tarball. While it is longer,
I don't think clarity should take a back-seat to brevity.
Also, the skeleton should definitely include lib-stuff.
%define libname lib%name%major
and all the rest (descriptions, file-lists, depends, etc.) Not only
does this clarify the lib policy, but the packager doesn't have to
figure out the depends/provides for the libs which was VERY confusing
for me at first, and is the same 90% of the time.
Austin
--
Austin Acton Hon.B.Sc.
Synthetic Organic Chemist, Teaching Assistant
Department of Chemistry, York University, Toronto
MandrakeClub Volunteer (www.mandrakeclub.com)
homepage: www.groundstate.ca
