Re: bitpim binary modules breaks Gentoo QA policies

On Saturday 04 March 2006 01:54, Roger Binns wrote:
> > odd ... downloading the apsw source zip (apsw-3.2.7-r1.zip) and
> > proceeding to run `python setup.py build` produces a proper apsw.so for
> > me ... you say you're building this on the Redhat 9 box ?  wonder if the
> > distutils that you have installed on there are outdated and dont build
> > proper shared objects with -fPIC ...
>
> That would likely be the case.

is apsw required to be bundled ?  i'm wondering if i add a quick ebuild for 
apsw to portage, if we can get bitpim to use that ... doesnt seem like you do 
apsw releases nearly as often as bitpim, so i could just add myself to the 
notify in the sf release page for it ...

> > fun !  i'll have to ponder hard on this one ... is there no package which
> > provides the `bmp2avi` util ?
>
> That is in the bitpim code.
> http://svn.sf.net/viewcvs.cgi/bitpim/trunk/bitpim/src/native/av/bmp2avi/
>
> It just uses g++ -o foo foo.o (on Redhat 9).

so we're back to square one ...

> >> My other suggestion was a seperate package (eg gentoo-rpm)
> >
> > an interesting concept ... and i doubt the basic implementation would
> > present too much trouble ... simply unpacking an rpm, inserting relevant
> > portage information, and not worrying about crap like dependencies ...
>
> The existing BitPim ebuild does exactly that!  It inherits rpm.eclass
> which basically unpacks the rpm into the source directory (using
> rpm2cpio).  The trick is to then get the files into the installed
> packages list.  Have a look at app-portage/g-cpan
> What it does is creates a new ebuild on the fly.  It is overengineered
> for our purposes since it also creates dependent CPAN module ebuilds
> and a whole bunch of other crud.  If someone wants to write a
> tool like this then I am prepared to help (primarily with testing).

mmm we're not quite on the samepage here ... i was thinking of a tool where 
you feed it an rpm and it'll basically convert it on the fly and treat it 
like a binary Gentoo package ... no random ebuild needed in a portdir overlay 
if done right ...

> Rant mode on:  For some bizarre reason, none of the various Linux
> packaging systems provide a binary that can be run that lets
> you add a file to the installed files database.  This makes it
> impossible for post install scripts to adjust to the installed
> system.  For example you can't do this:

that's what happens when no standard exists for how things should be done ... 
every distro has a "better" idea than the next as to how to manage packages

>   if .... some random condition ...
>   then
>        add-to-filedatabase MyPackageName /etc/foo.conf
>   else
>        add-to-filedatabase MyPackageName /var/etc/foo.conf
>   fi

being a general noob, i really have no idea what installf does ... 
consequently, i'm not sure what you're going for here :)
-mike


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642