On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> On Dec 22, 2003, at 3:56 PM, Richard Sharpe wrote:
>
> > I think that it would be better if:
> >
> > 1. I could come up with one spec file
> >
> > 2. I built three packages, ethereal-no-snmp, ethereal-net-snmp,
> > ethereal-ucd-snmp, which installed everything. This will simplify the
> > installation decisions for people.
> >
> > Does anyone have any opinions on this?
>
> What if somebody wants to install only Tethereal on a system that lacks
> X11? (Presumably that's why there are ethereal-base and ethereal-gtk+
> packages.)
OK, this is an important consideration ... need to think about whether or
not we want incremental packages in that case, or a separate package that
only contains tethereal and the non-GUI tools in that case.
> > Also, can anyone point me at resources that can teach me how to build
> > three packages from one SPEC file?
>
> Nothing obvious showed up on the www.rpm.org site for the type of
> "three packages" you're trying to build; there are subpackages:
>
> http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/ch-rpm-subpack.html
>
> but that doesn't sounds as if it's intended for building multiple
> variants of what's essentially the *same* package.
>
> However, it might let you have a master "ethereal" package that
> installs everything, or maybe "ethereal" (which installs Ethereal and
> Tethereal but not any of the GNOMR or KDE desktop stuff),
> "ethereal-kde" ("ethereal" + KDE desktop stuff), and "ethereal-gnome"
> ("ethereal" + GNOME desktop stuff), with a "tethereal" package just
> installing Tethereal and the stuff it requires, and "ethereal" having
> "tethereal" as a dependency.
I will check that out and see what I can do ...
> An alternative might be to have a single ethereal.spec.in file with
> conditionals in it, expanded by cpp or M4 or something such as that,
> and generating multiple output ethereal.spec files
> (ethereal-no-snmp.spec, ethereal-net-snmp.spec, ethereal-ucd-snmp.spec)
> from that.
>
> BTW, should the spec file or files being used be checked into
> "packaging/rpm/SPECS"? The current ethereal.spec.in is more than a
> year old; I assume it doesn't reflect the current packaging.
Yes, we should update that. Let me do that when I have sorted this mess
out.
Regards
-----
Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]ns.aus.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org,
sharpe[at]ethereal.com, http://www.richardsharpe.com