Panu Matilainen schreef op di 30-11-2010 om 22:10 [+0200]:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> > If I understand your blog entry correctly then we (the Fedora MinGW SIG)
> > are recommended to use something like this:
> >
> > %__mingw32_provides %{_mingw32_findprovides}
> > %__mingw32_requires %{_mingw32_findrequires}
> >
> > Is this correct or do you recommend something different?
>
> That alone wont do anything at all, to create a new "file attribute"
> called mingw32 you'd add a file like this to a suitable package,
> mingw32-filesystem probably:
>
> /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs/mingw32.attr:
>
> %__mingw32_requires /usr/lib/rpm/mingw32-find-requires.sh
> %__mingw32_provides /usr/lib/rpm/mingw32-find-provides.sh
> %__mingw32_magic ^PE32 executable for MS Windows.* 80386 32-bit$
>
> The magic rule is based on what 'file -b <file>' outputs for mingw32
> executables and dll's - the above includes both, but you can make it
> tighter to only include DLL's or have different extractors for DLL's and
> EXE's by creating two rules instead of just one etc. Or if libmagic
> strings aren't good ("fakedll" binaries from Wine would match the above
> rule), path based regexes can be used too. It all depends on what makes
> sense in a given scenario.
>
> You could also easily have a mingw32-specific pkg-config dependency
> extractor which uses a different namespace than the regular pkgconfig(foo)
> and only activates on .pc files from the mingw32 sys-root directory.
>
> And with necessary mingw32-specific .attr files in place through
> buildrequires, there's no need for override kludges in each and every
> mingw32 spec.
Ah yes, thanks for the detailed information. This sure looks interesting
for us! I'll try to play around a bit with this in a mock environment
and see if it's possible to update our packaging guidelines to make use
of it.
Regards,
Erik van Pienbroek
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
