sdcc - Cross Compiler, Needs Packaging Standards?
Horst H. von Brand
vonbrand at inf.utfsm.cl
Mon Feb 26 16:53:56 UTC 2007
Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> wrote:
> Warren Togami wrote:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795
> >
> > It appears that a few folks want sdcc, but do the packaging standards
> > for cross compilers and the concern about names being dropped into
> > /usr/bin should be solved first?
> >
[...]
> Since Ralf and I agree for 99.9% on my proposal, this really is
> almost done. The only thing which I want discussed in a wider
> audience / need more input in is the SRPM issue, quoting from my
> original mail:
> "The SRPMS for all these packages will most of the time contain the
> exact same tarbals as the native binutils / gcc / libs
>
> Possible solutions:
> a) Live with the extra diskspace / bandwidth cost this induces upon
> our mirrors
> b) *** Warning dirty hack ***
> Test for the existence of the tarbal in RPM_SOURCE_DIR in %prep
> and if it isn't there bail with a message howto get the tarbal
> from the srpms for the native packages. We can use the sources
> file and the look-aside cache to make the test for the tarbal
> succeed on the buildsys. Advantages: saves tons of diskspace.
> Disadvantage: slight inconvienience for people trying to rebuild
> the srpm's manually. Large inconvienience for people doing
> automated rebuilds (aurora for example)
>
> I honestly don't know what todo here. I kinda like solution b),
> except for the pain it causes to aurora and possible others."
You can build nosrc.rpms, by just stating in the .spec, e.g.:
Source0: some-nice-file.tar.bz2
...
NoSource: 0
The NoSource directive says that Source0 (in this case) is not to
be included in the SRPM.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list