[packagers] Re: [svn] r3600 - in trunk/rpms: . fmod

C.Lee Taylor leet at leenx.co.za
Wed Oct 5 16:42:26 CEST 2005


> Well, there is a clear distinction between a work-in-progress and a final 
> SPEC file that simply doesn't build on all distributions (and never will). 
> There is no requirement that something has to build for all distributions.
	Okay, you got me ...

> The SPEC file in subversion didn't even build as non-root :) I think that 
> was matthias biggest aggravation, can't blame him for that.
	I did not even know what that was before I started with my "Have to 
have every OSS Game for my Mom in a nice and easy to install package" 
mission ... But we all do our bit ...

>>	Okay, but I don't have a complete build system for all the distros and
>>versions that RPMForge support ( Don't know how you guys do it ), Don't even
>>know how to really test that I have all the right BuildReq and so on that I
>>see Dries fixing at the moment ... Plus, with an incomplete SPEC, I would hope
>>the stronger of the clan could help out, but then that was what I thought the
>>Packagers List is for too ... So, let me switch feet and shoot the other toe
>>off /-) ...
> 
> 
> It's not your responsibility to test and verify it against every 
> distribution. But we should have some mechanisme so that builders can sign 
> a new SPEC file off when they've tested it. That would allow us to keep 
> track of the progress of those new packages and finally make it production 
> when every builder has signed it off.
	If a perfect world ... Just around the corner ... I know the SPEC's 
files that I put together, work enough that my poor Mother is forced to 
play only the games I have put together ... So they are tested very 
nicely ... I think ...

> BTW I don't think it is necessary that we have all the BuildReqs in there. 
> Don't get me wrong, it would be fantastic if we could, but it should not 
> be your prime occupancy. Our prime target are end-users, and they don't 
> build packages. Everyone else who does, is smart enough to fix missing 
> BuildReqs and they should tell us whenever that happens.
	Yes, but it nice if some day, anybody can do like the Debian guys do, 
and just do a quick "yum source rebuild" or something and all the stuff 
just works ... I think that is part of what we do ...

> If missing BuildReqs makes a build fail, so be it, it can be fixed on the 
> spot.
	I know, just working toward the day, my Dad on the other side of the 
world ( ZA and NZ, far apart ) could get basic help and support from me ...

> As you said, it would be nice if we could know from rpmbuild what the 
> build failure was. In what stage, missing buildreqs, missing 
> source/patches, syntax error, or whatever.
	I think everybody is working on somethings ... Like the build system at 
Extra and the stuff that Dries has running ... We all do are bit ... ;-)

	Again, thanks ... I hope I can give my Mother some more games to test 
soon ...

Mailed
Lee

P.S. This difference between 32/64 is pain right now ... Quite a few 
games seem to have problems with this ...



More information about the packagers mailing list