On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 01:41:29 +0100 (CET), Andreas Thienemann wrote: > Hi, > > I'm currently trying to package ser, the sip express router. > > Depending on the variables passed at compile time, the resulting binary is > either linking against mysql or postgresql. > IN order not to pull in unneeded dependencies I'd like to package it as > ser (no database support/no persistant storage), ser-mysql, ser-pgsql and > ser-common for the rest > > Is there a template/example spec file somewhere detailing how one would > package such a software? "ulogd" in Extras is similar with regard to sub-packages for database support. But it doesn't require running %configure twice. Your description is a bit vague (also see below). Does the software build multiple plugins for database support? Or does it create a single executable only, which is linked to a single chosen database library? In that case, your packages would conflict, because you would have two executables, one linked against mysql, the other linked against pgsql. Bad. In case you need to %configure and "make" the source code twice, you can't avoid compiling the code once, moving built files into a temporary directory, then compiling the code again with a modified configuration. In the %install section you would install the built files from the first pass manually and install the rest as usual. In case of file name conflicts, however, you need to find a different solution (like giving files changed names). > Right now I'm wondering how to manage the %install phase and how to get > the binaries with the same name, but different dependencies installed and > listed in the %files section. "binaries with the same name" sounds like a conflict. If you want mutually exclusive sub-packages ser-mysql and ser-pgsql, you still need non-conflicting file names and a mechanism like "alternatives" to activate the desired database version after installation. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
