RPM Community Forums

Mailing List Message of <rpm-users>

Re: vcheck question

From: Jeff Johnson <n3npq@mac.com>
Date: Sat 05 Apr 2008 - 20:27:52 CEST
Message-Id: <7059E648-1ABE-4E14-801A-73B3A961828E@mac.com>

On Apr 5, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 05, 2008, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> [...]
>> AFAIK vcheck is functional in rpm, but there may be some slight
>> differences in rpmbuild options and usage that may still depend on
>> OpenPKG.
> %track is fully functional in RPM 5 -- I've just checked it a few
> minutes ago (see my reply on rpm-devel@, too). OpenPKG uses %track the
> same way, it just uses a larger section prolog in order make sure that
> the external "vcheck" package is installed (which exists because  
> vcheck
> depends on "perl", "perl-www" and a bunch of other packages):

I thought vcheck "worked" in rpm-5.0, but I can never remember all  
the bleeping options to rpm
and was too lazy to check ;-)

Now that there is the means to deliver explicit custom %track data  
for the
everyone-has-to-be-different case, its likely time to drill a header  
through a headerSprintf template that looks like

prog %{NAME} = { \
     version   = %{VERSION} \
     url       = %{URL} \
     regex     = %{NAME}-(__VER__)\.tar\.gz \

that has a better than even chance of working for most upstream  
sources. Certainly
trivial to add Yet Another popt alias to spew the expansion.

Yes more would need to be done with %{URL}, perhaps adding  
to capture the base of the SourceN: directive and add to headers.

73 de Jeff
Received on Sat Apr 5 20:28:24 2008
Driven by Jeff Johnson and the RPM project team.
Hosted by OpenPKG and Ralf S. Engelschall.
Powered by FreeBSD and OpenPKG.