Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx> wrote: > Warren Togami wrote: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 > > > > It appears that a few folks want sdcc, but do the packaging standards > > for cross compilers and the concern about names being dropped into > > /usr/bin should be solved first? > > [...] > Since Ralf and I agree for 99.9% on my proposal, this really is > almost done. The only thing which I want discussed in a wider > audience / need more input in is the SRPM issue, quoting from my > original mail: > "The SRPMS for all these packages will most of the time contain the > exact same tarbals as the native binutils / gcc / libs > > Possible solutions: > a) Live with the extra diskspace / bandwidth cost this induces upon > our mirrors > b) *** Warning dirty hack *** > Test for the existence of the tarbal in RPM_SOURCE_DIR in %prep > and if it isn't there bail with a message howto get the tarbal > from the srpms for the native packages. We can use the sources > file and the look-aside cache to make the test for the tarbal > succeed on the buildsys. Advantages: saves tons of diskspace. > Disadvantage: slight inconvienience for people trying to rebuild > the srpm's manually. Large inconvienience for people doing > automated rebuilds (aurora for example) > > I honestly don't know what todo here. I kinda like solution b), > except for the pain it causes to aurora and possible others." You can build nosrc.rpms, by just stating in the .spec, e.g.: Source0: some-nice-file.tar.bz2 ... NoSource: 0 The NoSource directive says that Source0 (in this case) is not to be included in the SRPM. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513 -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
