On 18/11/15 22:34, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 04:34:16PM +0000, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> On 18/11/15 03:31, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>>>>>>> "PB" == Pádraig Brady <P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>> PB> Is $subject possible? >>> >>> I don't think so, since at the end of %install you have exactly one set >>> of files in one buildroot. >> >> Right. There was talk of potential support for this ages ago: >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/rpm-list/2002-July/msg00222.html >> >>> Still, I don't see a reason for the >>> subpackages to actually conflict. >>> >>> PB> Are any other techniques possible? >>> >>> Install the binaries under separate names and use simple scripts to >>> decide which to run (or use alternatives, but ugh.) Install libraries >>> into separate paths and use the scripts to set the library path. >>> >>> If the software uses dlopen, just fix it to open the proper library >>> based on the capabilities of the machine. >> >> Yes not ideal. >> What I've done in %post is to mv the conflicting files >> from a temp to standard location, overwriting any existing files. > > That's horrible for supermin to deal with. Can I ask at least that > the non-single-file coreutils version (ie. the normal one) isn't the > one which uses the %post script? I didn't mention coreutils in this thread. You don't miss much :) Yes this is related to the coreutils split I was looking at. I've come up with something fairly clean. The normal coreutils package is unchanged. coreutils-single is also now a "normal package" which will not modify any installed files and thus verify correctly after install. I was able to add new links in the %post stage to the packaged files, leveraging the multicall binary handling. It works well in a chroot at least. cheers, Pádraig. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
