On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 08:39:22AM -0400, Chip Turner wrote:
> Take a look at perl-RPM-Specfile package (ships with FC2),
> specifically the RPM::Specfile module inside it. It basically is a
> wrapper around creating spec files and is what I use for packaging for
> Fedora and RHEL. It definitely has some flaws, though, and it looks
> like the template you create addresses some of them. Also included is
> cpanflute2, which takes a tarball and (tries, usually succesfully) to
> create an RPM out of it.
I've been using cpanflute2 for a long time, but the "problem" is that
it tries to make a package that will build. I'm trying to make a
spec file that will test fedora.us QA with as little work as possible,
but there's no getting around a little editing.
I've submitted around 30 perl packages to fedora.us (all generated
with cpanflute2, then cleaned up). None of them are getting past the
QA testers. Rather than fix every one of them to match the fedora.us
template and clean up BuildRequires and such, I'd rather start with
something as close as possible to the template, then fix it to build.
(That seems to be the easy part.)
So far I've re-submitted perl-Text-Reform and perl-Text-Autoformat
(fedora.us bugs 1353 and 1354) if anyone wants to take a look at the
slightly cleaned up results of my script.
> If at all possible, I think it would be better to consolidate this
> kind of work around a single package and make it better so that we're
> not all reinventing the wheel over and over ("but mine's more round!"
> :)).
I know. I'm not happy about making yet another tool, but I thought it
would be easier to get the basic ideas into a new script rather than
try to shove all the logic into cpanflute2, cpan2rpm, etc. Eventually
that's what I'd like to do, but I'm not sure if there's a way to
reconcile the "make something that builds" vs. "make something that
looks nice" goals.
Steve
--
Steven Pritchard - K&S Pritchard Enterprises, Inc.
Email: steve@xxxxxxxxx http://www.kspei.com/
Phone: (618)398-7360 Mobile: (618)567-7320
