Hi all, We have made some progress recently on getting a Ceph RPM that works on CentOS 5.5 and other Red Hat-derived distros. Now that our version number no longer includes a tilde, and the spec file has been pruned a bit, I think we have a shot at building this cleanly. I just have a few questions that perhaps people more experienced with RPM packaging can answer: 1. should we have a debug SPEC file and a regular SPEC file? I think in the long term we want to have both a Ceph and a Ceph-devel RPM built. 2. What is the best way to bundle the python bindings? Currently I am getting this error when building the RPM: > error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: > /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/rados.py > /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/rados.pyc > /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/rados.pyo However, I need to find an RPM variable that has a path to the python site-packages directory. automake knows this, but so far I haven't figured out where this information lives in RPM. This guy suggests a workaround: http://www.linux-archive.org/centos/171366-python-sybase-centos-5-x86_64-a.html But his workaround seems kind of clumsy, and in fact doesn't work for me on CentOS 5.5. Surely there is a standard way to refer to the sit-packages directory in RPM without hacks? 3. How should we handle tcmalloc, if at all? Google-perftools is not bundled for 64 bit on CentOS. (It seems like this decision was made because some of the stuff in this package is buggy on 64 bit x86. However, tcmalloc itself is not buggy on 64 bit.). And in general, how do we handle things that are "good to have" but which shouldn't be dependencies? cheers, Colin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
