On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 21:24:24 +0200, Fábio Mierlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/9/06, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 9/9/06, Fábio Mierlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > I'm patching Compile to extract tar.gz from src.rpm, but having RPM >> > as dependence isn't a good thing. I'm making a recipe for RPM 4.4.6, >> > but it will be a very huge package 17M to compile a 200k package >> > like hwdata. >> >> What about Jonas' link to the .tar.gz? If they're keeping that package >> in sync with the rpm it's probably safe to use it. > > It isn't in sync, debian unstable had the same version, but the latest > is a src.rpm. > Yes, the debian version is the same as red hat stable. Red hat development is a later version, but as you mentioned red hat stable in your first message I thought that it was an option and then the debian(ubuntu) tar.gz was a better alternative. > Follow a patch for Compile deal with src.rpm files, what do you think? > If it ok I can update NewVersion and MakeRecipe to deal with src.rpm > files. > I think the idea of creating a function, in scripts, with the shell or python script body and making Compile unpack the src.rpm when the src.rpm check succeeds, instead of setting unpack_files=files_in_root, because with the current implementation (the patch) one needs an updated version of atools, with the wrapper, which we cannot guarantee that people have. With the function in Compile (or Scripts/Functions) the feature does not demand updating a third party app. By having the rpm2cpio function in Scripts would make it possible to completly drop the rpm package and build in some support for rpm into Compile/Scripts. > ps: NewVersion work fine here, but I think that MakeRecipe need a > update > What's the problem with MakeRecipe? -- /Jonas Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
