Far as I can tell the solutions are very similar - I used a suffix defined in the preamble, and modules to set PATH, LD_LIBRARY_PATH etc, SCL seems to use a prefix defined on the command line and requires implementing the enable script on a per package basis, but other than that the solutions seem identical.
Had I known of scl in advance, I'd probably use it. As it is, I prefer modules for the built in facilities for manipulating environment variables%package c++
Summary: C++ support for GCC
Group: Development/Languages
Requires: gcc%{gcc_suffix} = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: libstdc++%{gcc_suffix} = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: libstdc++%{gcc_suffix}-devel = %{version}-%{release}
Autoreq: true
Provides: gcc-c++
and gcc_suffix can be 474/484/492/etc.
This causes a conflict with binutils;
rpm -q --conflicts binutils
gcc-c++ < 4.0.0
rpm -q --conflicts binutils
gcc-c++ < 4.0.0
and if trying yum install:
--> Processing Conflict: binutils-2.20.51.0.2-5.42.el6.x86_64 conflicts gcc-c++ < 4.0.0
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: binutils conflicts with gcc484-c++-4.8.4-1.el6.x86_64
--> Processing Conflict: binutils-2.20.51.0.2-5.42.el6.x86_64 conflicts gcc-c++ < 4.0.0
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: binutils conflicts with gcc484-c++-4.8.4-1.el6.x86_64
It seems to me from reading about the conflicts tag that this behavior is wrong. Without version in the provides, it should be assumed to be a virtual package, so conflict based on version should not happen.
Am I wrong and this is the expected behavior?
I don't know if the correct solution is to provide a version in the provides: tag (will it affect yum update, i.e. cause yum to replace gcc-c++ with gcc484-c++ even though there is no file conflict) or to force installation with nodeps, or something else.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Mat Booth <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9 April 2015 at 10:56, Daniel Letai <dani@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Thanks, It now works
I also had to move it prior to the 1st %description tag.
BTW, I have built a gcc toolchain rpms (gmp, mpfr, mpc, cloog, isl, osl and gcc - each in it's own rpm) using environment modules to allow multiple version co-existence.
It works well enough internally in our own production environment, I'm wondering if anyone else might have use of such an environment.
The %doc was the last issue.
It sounds like you have very nearly re-invented "software collections" because it does something similar: https://www.softwarecollections.org/en/
On 04/09/2015 11:34 AM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Daniel Letai <dani@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
$ cat sample_rpm.spec[...]
global _defaultdocdir /opt/sample_rpm/share/docTry %global instead of global.
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
--
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
