Le Wednesday 2 March 2005 17:04, Leopold Toetsch a écrit : > Olivier Thauvin wrote: > > I am looking to make a parrot rpm for mandrake and in same time, cleaning > > and beautify the spec in the parrot cvs, but I am lock because the make > > install and the MANIFEST.* generation doesn't works as it should: > > - path are the same in MANIFEST.* and the install > > - library are not installed > > - path are mixing doc and other things > > - mix parrot library file and .so files. > > Yeah. It was also reported that parrot.exe wasn't installed, IIRC.
This is normal, the Makefile build parrot$(EXE) but the MANIFEST.generated relate blib/bin/parrot. > > > So the things I am thinking: > > > > blib/lib/libparrot.so => $(LIBDIR)/libparrot.so > > whatever/file.pmc => $(PARROTLIBDIR)/whatever/file.pmc > > Sounds reasonable. What about the icu files? icu use autotools, maybe let autotools decide, but we should find a way to passe CFLAGS and path to configure. There is a pb here, .so become .dll on windows, binary become binary.exe, ect... > > > Currently there is two scripts (mk_manifests.pl, install_files.pl) but it > > does not expand path in same way, so MANIFEST.* are wrong, I purpose to > > merge those two script and let install_files.pl genrerate MANIFEST*. > > I don't know. Maybe crate/use a module that has the common parts. > > > Only after cleaning the installation I will be able to make a parrot.spec > > as I promise on #parrot. Of course if you agree with this solution, I'll > > make a patch. > > > > WDYT ? any comment ? > > I appreciate getting "make install rpms" working very much. But I can't > say much about, how it should work ;) I can make a clean rpm (I do it for while now) and I can help about the installation process, for sure I will not look the C code. Well before patching with closed eyes we have to define a way to define packaged file. The actuall process is too limited and is a mixed between perl script and Makefile. For what I understand: Configure.PL + makefile*.in => Makefile Script + MANIFEST => installation process. There is an evident issue here: duplicate and mistmatch code. I don't know how to make it better but I am looking for. MANIFEST.generated is a bad idea anyway. Why not having only one makefile ? Why not let make install generated files ? Are Manifest.* very usefull ? those file can be used only by rpm, is the installation process is not here to make the packager works. I just open some questions here. If I had choice: - do not make MANIFEST.* => rpm packager job - adding an install target in Makefile for all file instead having a perl script + fixed lists for installation This is only my point of view.
pgpORNrjzlnvp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
