Hi I have created multi-disrto rpm for RH7.2 , AS2.1 & suse there were lots of dependencies but now its ready for market. Need any info or help !!!! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon J Mudd" <sjmudd@xxxxxxxxx> To: <rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 2:02 PM Subject: Re: Guidelines for multi-distro spec files? > hal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Hal Wine) writes: > > > I haven't seen anything besides "don't do it" in my googling, but I > > figure someone has done it. > > > > How do folks create spec files to support different distributions of > > linux? (e.g. RH AS and SuSE). > > > > I'm hoping to find a list of tips, such as "require files, not > > packages, to get around naming differences". > > Others have already given you some pointers. I've been building > Postfix for RH versions from 5.x-EL 3.0 (Yellowdog, Mandrake) with > various optional bits like MySQL, TLS, pcre, .... (http://postfix.WL0.org). > > This has been more of a hobby project than anything else especially > since initially there was no Postfix RPM produced by anyone when I > started this. > > Certainly the big problem in building a spec file which supports > multiple distributions is that the dependencies change, the requires > or buildrequires change, older versions of a distribution behave > differently from newer versions and your spec file / scripts have to > take these differences into account. If you are lucky a package built > on RH7 should work on all RH7.x versions, and maybe later, but often > the library changes from one distribution version to the next mean > that you need to build new binary rpms because of this. > > I imagine that multi-distribution spec files get worse the more > distributions you add. Of course you need to know the distributions > quite well to ensure that everything works as expected and have test > machines (or chroots) to do all the building. > > I finally use a postfix.spec.in file and a script which takes optional > arguments building a spec file which can be used for the target > distribution. > > The disadvantage of something like this is that you can't do a > rpmbuild --rebuild. > > Including all the stuff in my "make specfile script" within the spec > file is probably possible but the rpm macros required to do this make > the package too ugly IMO. > > It would certainly be nice to have better packaging guidelines from > the vendors so that at least at the packaging level the distribution > differences (or different distribution versions) caused fewer > headaches, but somehow I don't see that happening. > > Good luck, I hope you package is simple enough that you don't get > caught out by some of the more irritating gotchas... > > Simon > > > _______________________________________________ > Rpm-list mailing list > Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
