On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 03:36:19PM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 3/28/13 2:09 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: > > Hi Kay, > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 09:27:30AM -0800, Kay Schenk wrote: > >>> No. The spec are generated at build time and removed once each > >>> package each built, so there is no way to get the spec from the > >>> build (besides, those spec are generated at runtime and are > >>> dependent on configure switches). > >> > >> On this matter -- identification of spec files for Linux > >> packages. I have looked in vain for about 2 weeks on this as > >> well. I found the specs for the desktop integrations but this is > >> after the fact -- not the actual specs for most of the install. > > > > Hacking EPM allowed me to keep them after the package is built: > > http://people.apache.org/~arielch/specs.tar.gz (this is only for > > RPMs, didn't look at the DEB stuff yet). > > > > The spec files are rather simple, nothing you won't get by querying > > rpm passing it a rpm package. > > > > Linux installation is broken: > > https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121968 so any help > > would be appreciated. > > a good question but my knowledge about linux package manager is limited. > > We have a new major version and a new name. I hope we can agree that > we want both, especially the new name (the version is straight forward).
What I've learned from the previous versions is that we need the version out of the package name, otherwise openoffice4.0 is a different package than openoffice4.1, and so on, see http://markmail.org/message/t76ag6tco4kpkopd > The question is indeed how we can solve this. Is there a way to > provide a package or some dependencies that removes older or other > packages. Something that we can provide additionally? > > Or a special openoffice.org cleanup package. Most all of these is possible. EPM has support for Provides, Requires, Obsoletes, Conflicts (see rpm.c in the epm source package). The build environment has partial support for this via "linuxreplaces", as explained in the mail above (main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/packagelist.pm has to be patched). The desktop-integration packages are more easy, because there is no epm in the middle, just spec files. > Who has more knowledge about rpm/debs and can provide more info? I'm familiar with RPM, but about Debian packaging don't know much (almost nothing). The other problem is that all Linux users here, AFAIK, are using rpm-based distributions (Ricardo, Andrea, Kay, me). This can be solved by a virtual machine for testing. Real work and testing on this has to wait for your integration of the 1-layer installation; so, the sooner you commit it on trunk, the better. Do you have an estimated date? Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina
pgpERLPubFpwm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
