On 11/05/12 04:18, Adam Young wrote:
> Attached is my first stab at a Spec file for Websockify. One thing I
> noticed is that It builds as a x86_64 arch on my machine, and should be
> a noarch.
you might want to include
BuildArch: noarch
and should definitely replace /usr/bin and /usr/lib by rpm macros.
You also might append to setup: -n kanaka-websockify-%{version} and
remove the later mv from prep-section.
If you like to get this reviewed, submit websockify for review and give
me a ping.
>
> I am building from the git hash 19a9730 but would really like to have a
> version number to build with. We could do what Openstack is doing, and
> use a date based number. I guess that would make this something like
> 20120510, But I would rather get a checkpointed release number. I'll
> let Martin make the call.
>
There has been a thread about github being bad upstream. It included a
scriptlet to do a fresh checkout, tar.gz etc. Really nice. If you're
interested, I'll search for that in my .spec files.
>
> The end state is to remove all of the non-noVNC specific files in the
> noVNC spec file, and to instead import websockify from here.
>
I don't see a problem in dividing into several packages. I'd say, it
depends on upstream. If upstream distributes one source-tarball, I'd
say, it's one package.
Matthias
--
Matthias Runge <mrunge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mrunge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
cloud mailing list
cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
