On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 10:54 +0800, Lin Ma wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Does anyone know why we should copy class action scripts into
> ext-sources? Is JDS consolidation allowed to do like this? To me, it
> seems a *pkgbuild* bug. If no other reasons, pkgbuild should directly
> consume the system default class action scripts
> /usr/sadm/install/scripts/* rather than copy them to ext-sources, right?
If the class action script exists in /usr/sadm/install/scripts, then you
don't need to add it to ext-sources and you don't need the %iclass or
%rclass directives in the spec file. However, if you are using a
non-standard class action script, it needs to be included in the package
and pkgbuild needs to find it somewhere.
Laca
> lin
>
> Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote:
> > Hi Darren, looks good. Yes, ext-sources is the right place for exec_attr
> > and the class action scripts. Just 2 nits:
> >
> > On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 22:12 +0000, Darren Kenny wrote:
> >
> >> mkdir %name-%version
> >> %systemtoolsbackends.prep -d %name-%version
> >> %gnomesystemtools.prep -d %name-%version
> >> +cp %SOURCE1 %{_builddir}/%name-%version/exec_attr
> >>
> >
> > You don't actually need to do this (although it doesn't hurt), you
> > could just refer to %SOURCE1 in %install.
> >
> >
> >> cd %{_builddir}/%name-%version
> >> gzcat %SOURCE0 | tar xf -
> >>
> >> @@ -85,6 +87,8 @@
> >> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> >> %systemtoolsbackends.install -d %name-%version
> >> %gnomesystemtools.install -d %name-%version
> >> +mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/security
> >> +cp %{_builddir}/%name-%version/exec_attr
> >> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/security
> >>
> >
> > It's usually better to use "install" for this, so that you can specify
> > the permissions.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Laca
> >
> >
> >> mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/inet/gnome-system-tools
> >> #Manpages
> >> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}
> >>
> >
> >
>
