[Libvirt-cim] [PATCH] fix spec file for sblim-sfcb and systemctl

[Eduardo Lima (Etrunko)]

On 03/12/2012 06:18 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:32:58AM +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
>> Daniel,
>>
>> thanks for the patch.
>>
>> * Daniel Veillard <veillard at redhat.com> [Mar 09. 2012 08:12]:
>>>   Right now the spec file is completely tied to tog-pegasus,
>>> this should allow the spec file to be compatible with sblim-sfcb
>>> too. This also switches to systemctl which is now used in Fedora.
>>>
>>>   I would actually like some feedback on the patch if someone
>>> has an environment to test with sblim-sfcb
>>
>> I'll test later today.
>> For reference, you might want to take a look at the spec file of
>> https://build.opensuse.org/package/files?package=libvirt-cim&project=systemsmanagement%3Awbem
>> which is a pure-sfcb variant.
>>
>>>
>>>   Also I noted that if I built the package with sblim-sfcb installed
>>> it failed in the make install phase with the following error:
>>
>> Thats a bug in the Makefile.am which does an incomplete substitution -
>> patch attached.
> 
>   Hi Klaus,
> 
> thanks for the patch, indeed it fixes the problem! I'm not sure what
> you are trying to fix in provider-reg.patch, but it seems to make sense
> to really pass them as 3 separate args instead of one big one.
> I think the biggest difference I can spot between the two spec files
> are the fact that you uninstall only the main schemas on %preun while
> we remove all the ones we registered in %post. Not really significant
> but I could have overlooked something :-)
> Chip, eduardo, could you look at those 3 paches ? Mine, the one
> that Klaus sent and
>   https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file?file=provider-reg.patch&package=libvirt-cim&project=systemsmanagement%3Awbem&rev=badf80eca4fd06ed9f84a67eafcbc760
> 

The problem is that the patch for the spec file actually does not apply,
can you resend it against .spec.in, instead of .spec?

Anyway, I don't have much to say here, because I am not running with
sblim-sfcb in my envioronment. I tested with pegasus and things still
work fine.

Second patch is also tested and works, but I don't see a reason for that
third patch. What is the error it intends to fix?

Best regards, Eduardo

>   thanks again !
> 
> Daniel
> 


-- 
Eduardo de Barros Lima
Software Engineer, Open Virtualization
Linux Technology Center - IBM/Brazil
eblima at br.ibm.com