Re: RPM compatibility

--===============8584376468308292314==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5me2qT3T17SWzdxI"
Content-Disposition: inline


--5me2qT3T17SWzdxI
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 08:11:38PM +1000, Michael Mansour wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>=20
> I use your repo's alot for many of my packages, but for applications I use
> that aren't available in repo's, I'm building them myself now and they se=
em to
> be working ok. I run FC1, FC2, FC3, SL3 and SL4 and build these packages =
for
> these platforms.
>=20
> What I'd like to do as I gain experience in packaging, is give back to the
> community I've benefitted so much from, so I'd like (hope) to make these
> packages available.
>=20
> I run various on-line services and have the ability to host ftp and http
> facilities, so I'm looking at making a small repo available, containing t=
he
> various tools I use and package, and making them available to others.
>=20
> I'm wondering though if there's a "standard linux base" I should be using=
 when
> building the RPM packages?

No and yes. Some years ago we tried to come up with something at the
fedora.us start, but were disappointed from the outcome. Since then
there were a few attempts to address this, but everybody and his cat
had setup his own standard.

This is not a perfect situation, but the players are worn off from
this discussion and aren't motivated to do anything about it. There is
a [email protected] list that is supposed to address such topics,
but still there is little that has been agreed upon.

Anyway, don't let that take your enthusiasm, just pick, what you
consider most fitting for your own packaging on the way.

> ie. when you build your packages, is there a standard FC3 build you
> use (a stock install that's not modified in any way etc) and build
> from that?

It depends. Some packages should be built in a pure not-updated
distribution. Most require an updated distribution and the repo's
other packages.

The most elegant way is to use self-buildable chroots (which are
constructed from the BuildRequires). But for starters I would use
simply rpmbuild on a normal system and worry about chroots later.

> I currently build them on actual running production systems, but as
> I am completely new to this area, any advice you guys could give me
> would be appreciated.

Start small and grow with each new package. :)

I'd use simple rpmbuild -ba foo.spec for learning rpm building. When
you feel confident enough, you can go using chroots. There are various
projects that can support you in this, most notably mach and dar (or
pydar?).

Also try to pick simple packages from repos and see how they were
built.

And most important: Have fun!!! :)
--=20
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

--5me2qT3T17SWzdxI
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFC80IpQBVS1GOamfERAiWMAJ98kALv+EyzS2mO/E9vrd2n26V57ACdELKu
dHj5n+xKt9nzF4VAWVVzTnQ=
=Ki1H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5me2qT3T17SWzdxI--


--===============8584376468308292314==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
repo-coord mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/repo-coord

--===============8584376468308292314==--