Skip to content

rhel5 rpm spec mods

7 messages · Ben Walton, Brian Ripley, Peter Dalgaard +1 more

Original
Ben Walton
# 
Hi All,

I'm in the process of building an rpm for rhel5 (client currently).
This has required modification of the spec file.  When I've completed
the process, I'd like to submit the changes to save others doing the
same work.  Is this the appropriate place to submit a patch with those
changes?

Thanks
-Ben
Brian Ripley
#
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Ben Walton wrote:

            

      
      
      
    

        
http://cran.r-project.org/bin/linux/redhat/SRPMS/R.spec

names the principal author, Martyn Plummer. Please contact him.

  
    

      
      
    

  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Peter Dalgaard
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
Ben Walton wrote:

            

      
      
      
    

        
Probably, contacting Martyn Plummer directly is the way to go.

            

      
      
      
    

        

      
      
    

        

  
    

      
      
    

  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Hin-Tak Leung
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
Ben Walton wrote:

            

      
      
      
    

        
I'll be interested to see it, but I wonder what kind of modification is
*required*? I am currently using a spec file modified from the 2.3 era
for 2.4 onto fedora 6, and I don't think there is *any* required
change to make the old spec file works on fc6.

Here are a list of my changes (from a diff I just do):
(1) ver 2.3.1<->2.4.1, plus a custom release tag to distinguish
from official build
(2) a bunch of change to do with LDFLAGS, etc so that I can do 32-bit 
build on 64-bit platforms.
(3) enable memory profiling and strict type check
(4) make also the pdf's for the full reference manual and the
extension manual.

These are all personal preferences; and FWIW, fedora extra also carries 
R (and I believe RHEL5 can get at fedora extra's via yum), so
(1) are you refering to the spec file on cran or the spec file on fedora 
extra? They are quite different!
(2) are you sure your "required" modification not a matter of personal 
preference as well?

HTL

  
  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Ben Walton
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
The only changes I've made (taken from the fc6.src.rpm) are in the
initial detection of which linux/rpm-based distro it's being built on.
This allows detection of gcc version, pdfviewer, etc.  These changes are
all similar to what happens in the fc line of detection, but weren't
being done for rhel.

Without modification, rpmbuild was looking for XFree86-devel and gcc-g77
which aren't valid packages in rhel5 (haven't looked at 4 as rpms were
already built for that).

I am aware of fedora extras but haven't gotten to the point of using
them in rhel (we do in our fc installs).  Personally, I'd prefer to stay
away from the fc rpm trees when possible as (being a devel distro)
versions can change wildly and bugs are more likely to crop up in
packaging, etc (we've been bitten in the past).  I'm moving away from fc
for production machines for this reason.  I prefer fewer surprises in
production machines when possible.

I'll discuss the required(1) changes with Martyn and submit them if he's
agreeable.

Thanks
-Ben

(1) assuming that they are required and I'm not missing the obvious.

  
    

      
      
    

  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Hin-Tak Leung
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
Ben Walton wrote:

            

      
      
      
    

        
Yes, those sounds reasonable.

            

      
      
      
    

        
yes and no. You can do "rpmbuild --nodeps <otherstuff>" without
modifying the spec file to tell rpmbuild to go ahead, I think.
This is also often the technique used when one tries to
build rpm's on non-rpm based systems like debian/gentoo/slackware.

            

      
      
      
    

        
Personally, I think EL4 is too old/conservative (and I don't have access
to EL5), and it makes me angry when I encounter a bug or limitation
that I know was already fixed/addressed a year or two ago. Can't win.
:-).

HTL

  
  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Ben Walton
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 05:29:31PM +0100, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:

        
+>  >Without modification, rpmbuild was looking for XFree86-devel and gcc-g77
+>  >which aren't valid packages in rhel5 (haven't looked at 4 as rpms were
+>  >already built for that).
+>  
+>  yes and no. You can do "rpmbuild --nodeps <otherstuff>" without
+>  modifying the spec file to tell rpmbuild to go ahead, I think.
+>  This is also often the technique used when one tries to
+>  build rpm's on non-rpm based systems like debian/gentoo/slackware.

That would work, but shouldn't be required, imho.  I sent the patch to
Martyn already, so hopefully it gets included.

+>  >I am aware of fedora extras but haven't gotten to the point of using
+>  >them in rhel (we do in our fc installs).  Personally, I'd prefer to stay
+>  >away from the fc rpm trees when possible as (being a devel distro)
+>  >versions can change wildly and bugs are more likely to crop up in
+>  >packaging, etc (we've been bitten in the past).  I'm moving away from fc
+>  >for production machines for this reason.  I prefer fewer surprises in
+>  >production machines when possible.
+>  
+>  Personally, I think EL4 is too old/conservative (and I don't have access
+>  to EL5), and it makes me angry when I encounter a bug or limitation
+>  that I know was already fixed/addressed a year or two ago. Can't win.
+>  :-).

Yes, EL4 is old and conservative.  EL5 will be the same in short order.
They are also stable and (mostly) surprise free.  I have encountered
bugs that are frustrating due to their age (open nfs locks and crashing
apps springs to mind) but for the most part I like it for my servers
(and lab machines/workstations, etc).  FC has it's (very important)
place and I do suggest that home users work with it (or Ubuntu/Debian).
The other issue with FC in production is the legacy support one.  I
can't be bothered to upgrade machines as often as the fc support cycle
would have me do (I miss fedoralegacy.org already).  I'm not really
saying I personally prefer RedHat, but it does meet a very important
need for me.

Thanks
-Ben