Re: Gnome-packaging-list digest, Vol 1 #115 - 3 msgs

[Christian Lohmaier <cloph cup uni-muenchen de>]

Hi James,

On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 05:41:34PM -0600, James Richardson wrote:
> [...] 
> >>http://www.fedora.us/docs/rpm-packaging-guidelines.html ]
> >Did not know of this guideline before, but a few remarks from my very
> 
> Do you know of another one? Perhaps a guidline of how gnome pkgs are built?

Unfortunately not, I even thought that the packaging project was dead.
But I like the idea of enhancing/adopting the above mentioned guideline
to an official one.

But there is another important thing to clarify before this should be
started:
What should be the official package-names? gtk+2 or gtk2, gnome-vfs2 or
gnome-vfs (or even gnome2-vfs), etc.

> >1) Defining directories in the spec-file sucks.
> I agreed, I was using the referenced site as a "guideline" not as a 
> howto.... 

Sure.

> no sense in rewritting binddir=blah when you don't have to...
> however i've noticed there's a lot of inconsitity in the destination of 
> man pages.... sometimes they end up in /usr/man others /usr/share/man, 
> but that's not really a big deal i guess.

-> The reason for this mess usually is the result of specifying the
paths in the spec-file.

> >3) using manual make install sucks.
> >4) listing *.mo files manually sucks.
> Yes it does. I *thought* that the find_lang.sh script was s'posed to 
> find these for me, but i'm playing with cvs battfink [it's a 
> quick-compile ;p] and for the life of me I can't get it to find the .mo 
> translations.

Well, maybe there isn't any ;->

> >>The gnome packages that do include scrollkeeper docs/omf fles install 
> >>files into /var/lib/scrollkeeper/<lang>/<xmlfile>. Why is this? 
> >They don't. Scrollkeeper generates these. The xml-files are
> >scrollkeeper's content lists (cl).
> 
> From my understanding, scrollkeeper generates these xml files from the 
> .omf file, correct?

..from the omf files, not only one single omf file.

> With that said, wouldn't it be easier to have a flag 
> that turns off the creation of them during the isntall script run? 

Why should this be easier? You can simply ignore it, just don't list
them in the %files section.
scrollkeeper-update takes a few seconds, so I don't think it is worth
the effort to include such a flag in every package.

> It 
> seems like wasted effort having it create them, manually having to 
> delete them in the spec file, just so it can re-create them when you 
> install the package.

It is, but since you always have to re-create them after installation...
(And If you don't tell rpm to fail on not-listed files, you can simply
ignore the files, no need to remove them)

But you must take into account that a flag that tells make install to
not run scrollkeeper-update is not written on its own, and that putting
this flag in every package is even more work.

> >That would be something like --dont-run-scrollkeeper-update or
> >something, but I don't such flag exists (but it is not necessary
> >anyway).
> 
> Why isn't it necessary?

Because I think that it's easier to just ignore the files than writing
patches to the makefiles of approx 60 Packages.

ciao
Christian
-- 
NP: Bush - Body