On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 01:19:55PM +0100, Martin Baehr wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 07:08:06AM -0500, Michael K. Johnson wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:37:04PM +0100, Martin Baehr wrote: > > > ah, yes, that's a problem if we really want to replace all uses of > > > libfoo:rpm > > > well, it looks to me that mixing encapsulated rpms with native packages > > > may not be something we want and we should look into repackaging > > > binaries as native conary packages as a next step. > > > > That's definitely more flexible, but requires a bunch of new work > > writing tag scripts, since the ecosystem has changed and the existing > > tag scripts won't be sufficient. > > can you elaborate on this? > is there other work besides writing tag scripts?
Yes, writing all the exceptions to ComponentSpec every time the defaults do not match what is desired is another example. > how do these scripts look like. can you point to some examples? > what's involved in writing such scripts? https://opensource.sas.com/conarywiki/index.php/Conary:Dynamic_Tags On your Foresight system, look in /usr/libexec/conary/tags/ for the tag handlers used in Foresight, and /etc/conary/tags/ for the description files that control both how they are assigned to files by default, and the bindings from tag values to tag handlers at system install time. > how can we find out what scripts are needed? Query all the RPM scripts in the source distro. Read all the existing tag scripts. Correlate all the RPM scripts against the tag handlers, and identify what's missing. That's what we did to write the initial set, but that was in the era of Fedora Core 1 and 2, and things have changed. It's not necessarily as hard as it sounds — after a while, you start to recognize the patterns pretty quickly — but you can probably see why I'm not recommending that as the starting point. _______________________________________________ Foresight-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.foresightlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/foresight-devel
