On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 11:24:25AM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > [moving to libvir-list] > > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 09:41 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 08:47:30AM +0800, FuLong Wang wrote: > > > Do we have libvirt source rpms (version above 5.9.0) for CentOS or RHEL? > > > > > > I only find source rpms for fedora in below public link. > > > > > > https://libvirt.org/sources/ > > > > Please ignore all the RPMs you see there, they really shouldn't be > > used. > > Can we just stop generating them? > > And get rid of all the existing ones, especially silly stuff like > the binary RPMs from 2013 targeting Fedora 17. This will have the > additional benefit of making it easier to find what you're looking > for, since it will no longer be hidden among a heap of irrelevant > garbage. Yes, I mentioned in the doc about adopting gitlab for infra, that we should stop providing the RPMs. > > The source tarballs (eg libvirt-5.9.0.tar.xz) contain a spec file > > inside. > > > > This means you can generate RPMs for your precise distro using something > > akin to the following commands: > > > > $ rpmbuild -ts libvirt-5.9.0.tar.xz > > $ sudo dnf install redhat-rpm-config > > $ sudo dnf builddep $HOME/rpmbuild/SRPMS/libvirt-5.9.0-1.fc31.src.rpm > > $ rpmbuild --rebuild $HOME/rpmbuild/SRPMS/libvirt-5.9.0-1.fc31.src.rpm > > I think it would make sense to document this quick procedure > somewhere, if we haven't already. There's some obvious overlap with > our 'make rpm' target, but that one requires unpacking the release > archive and running configure beforehand, so it's not quite as nice > for someone who just wants to quickly get a working set of RPMs. The README.md and the https://libvirt.org/compiling.html pages are good candidates. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
