Changeset 3873

Show
Ignore:
Timestamp:
12/14/03 01:39:37 (10 years ago)
Author:
mds
Message:

(mds)

Subject:

RE: RPM spec file patches for i2c and lm_sensors 2.8.1

Date:

Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:34:11 -0800

From:

"Marc Rieffel" <marc@…>

To:

<sensors@…>

I agree that you shouldn't distribute RPMs. That doesn't make sense for kernel modules.

For people like me, who want to easily deploy lm_sensors across a cluster of uniform machines, it's very handy to have a spec
file there so that we can build our own RPMs for specific systems with specific kernels and configurations. Even though the
spec file you had was out of date, it still saved me a lot of trouble.

My vote would be to keep the spec files. If nobody wants to maintain them, call them unsupported or unmaintained.

Who's Axel? I'd be happy to work with him, or just use whatever he has or recommends.

Unified diffs attached.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean Delvare khali@…
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 2:16 PM
To: Marc Rieffel; Axel Thimm
Cc: sensors@…
Subject: Re: RPM spec file patches for i2c and lm_sensors 2.8.1



I had to make these changes to be able to build i2c and lm_sensors
rpms that worked. Also, lm_sensors.init isn't included in

any of the

rpms. Looks like nobody's touched these for several versions.


You're right, the files were untouched since May 2000. Quite a while
actually. We don't build RPMs anymore. I personnaly consider that this
is the distributor's job, not our. They do that much better than we
would.

i2c.spec:

25c27
< %define ver 2.8.1
---

%define ver 2.5.0

(...)


Please provide unified diffs if you want me to apply them to
our files.

You could also consider getting in touch with Axel, who is building
quality RPM packages from our sources, using his own .spec
files. Maybe
you both will agree on some version of the spec files that we should
include in our source files. Or maybe we should simply remove the RPM
directory from our source trees - that would be more honest
IMHO, since
nobody here seems to be wanting to maintain them, while Axel
is doing a
very great job on his side. Let packagers package, that's their job :)

--
Jean Delvare
 http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/

Files:
1 modified

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • i2c/trunk/RPM/i2c-rh.spec

    r3472 r3873  
    1919 
    2020#Define your kernel version here.  
    21 %define smptag %(uname -r| cut -f2 -d - |sed 's/[0-9]//g') 
    22 %define versiontag %(uname -r|sed 's/smp//') 
    2321%define kversion %(uname -r) 
    24 %define kname kernel%(echo %{smptag}|sed 's/smp/-smp/') 
     22 
    2523 
    2624%define name kernel-i2c 
    27 %define ver 2.5.0 
     25%define ver 2.8.3 
    2826Summary: Updated i2c drivers 
    2927Name: %{name} 
    30 Version: %{ver}%{smptag} 
     28Version: %{ver} 
    3129Release: 1rh 
    3230Group: System Environment/Kernel 
     
    3634Docdir: %{prefix}/doc 
    3735Url: http://www.netroedge.com/~lm78/ 
    38 Requires: %{kname} = %{versiontag} 
     36Requires: kernel  = %{kversion} 
    3937#The new i2c code has been integrated into kernel 2.3.38 
    40 Conflicts: kernel >= 2.3.38 
    4138#For officially distributed packages, please sign below 
    42 Packager: Constantine Gavrilov <const-g@xpert.com> 
    43 Distribution: RedHat 6.1 
     39Packager: Marc Rieffel <marc@paracel.com> 
     40Distribution: Rocks 2.3 
    4441 
    4542%description 
     
    5653 
    5754%build 
    58 #even for non-SMP systems parallel make will build faster 
    59 if [ %{smptag} = smp ]; then 
    60  make -j4 MODVER=1 SMP=1 
    61 else 
    62  make -j4 MODVER=1 SMP=0 
    63 fi 
     55 
     56make -j4 
    6457 
    6558%install 
     
    7669%files 
    7770%dir /lib/modules/%{kversion} 
    78 %dir /lib/modules/%{kversion}/misc 
    79 /lib/modules/%{kversion}/misc/* 
     71%dir /lib/modules/%{kversion}/kernel/drivers/i2c 
     72/lib/modules/%{kversion}/kernel/drivers/i2c/* 
    8073%dir %{prefix}/include/linux 
    8174%{prefix}/include/linux/*.h