On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 04:07:45PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Just a question about this: If we need to pass extra options to the
dependency scripts (as in the example specfile below), can we still do
that?
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/ocaml-pxp/ocaml-pxp.spec?revision=1.11&view=markup
I should probably add that the need to use the '-i' option is really a
hack to workaround a bug in the script.
The problem is that if an OCaml library has submodules, like:
Module
Module.Submodule1
Module.Submodule2
then ocaml-find-requires will export Requires digests for Module,
Submodule1 and Submodule2. (It should only export them for Module).
ocaml-find-provides will only make digests for Module, so you get
broken dependencies.
Adding -i Submodule1 -i Submodule2 in this case is a hack to say
"those are submodules, don't export them".
I tried a long time ago to resolve this with upstream but didn't get
anywhere as it seems like a subtle problem with the implementation of
modules-vs-submodules which I don't fully understand.
Sure it's a workaround, but look at the hoops perl packagers are jumping
through because of defiences in perl.[req|prov]...
Anyway, upstream rpm now permits passing arbitrary options to the dep
extractor scripts by simply defining language and dependency-specific
_opts macros, eg
%define __ocaml_requires_opts -i Submodule1
%define __perl_provides_opts -e notimplemented
Whatever the scripts do or dont do with the options is up to them.
- Panu -
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
