On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 02:18:07PM -0500, Bill Rugolsky Jr. wrote: > Makefile targets like these are useful for developers who are mucking > around in a development tree, and just want a package of their current > tree; the kernel targets are great for that. End-users should prefer > that the tarball contain a working distro-neutral spec file, so that > they can just invoke rpmbuild: > > rpmbuild -ta e2fsprogs-1.36.tar.gz > > Unfortunately, naming conventions and macros differ just enought between > the various RPM-based distros that plenty of packages have instead a > foo.spec.in. In e2fsprogs-1.36, the only configure macro is the version > number, @E2FSPROGS_VERSION@. :-( IMHO, one should ship a .spec file with > the correct version number, or at least a macro conditional that allows > the user to do the following: > > rpmbuild -ta --define 'version 1.36' e2fsprogs-1.36.tar.gz The e2fsprogs.tar.gz tarball *does* come shipped with a e2fsprogs.spec file that has the version number defined, so that "rpmbuild -ta e2fsprogs-1.36.tar.gz" should work correctly, and has for quite some time now. The e2fsprogs.spec.in file that has @E2FSPROGS_VERSION@ is there so that the e2fsprogs.spec file can be built and included automatically in the .tar.gz file when the util/gen-tarball script is executed. E2fsprogs.spec *is* supposed to be a distro-neutral spec file, but I don't regularly use an rpm-based distribution these days, so I am depending on others to report bugs and suggest patches. It would be helpful though if people actually *tried* to use it as opposed making incorrect assertions on the mailing list. :-) - Ted _______________________________________________ Ext3-users@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
