RPM Community Forums

Mailing List Message of <rpm-users>

Re: autoconf -> rpm

From: Jeff Johnson <n3npq@mac.com>
Date: Sat 23 May 2009 - 22:37:17 CEST
Message-id: <2DBEFF3F-6F6A-4E7B-BA17-948F5FE0D6DA@mac.com>

On May 23, 2009, at 2:45 PM, barcaroller wrote:

>
> I have a software package that I build with the standard GNU autotools
> (autoconf/automake/libtool).  Is there an automated method of  
> converting
> this process to RPM?
>

I'm not sure what you are seeking.

E.g. here's a bog-standard GNU autotools "build" snipped
directly from popt.spec:

...
Source: http://rpm5.org/files/popt/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
...

%prep
%setup -q

%build
%configure
make

%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install
%find_lang popt
...

Is automation really needed? If so, just write
a shell script to generate a spec file template.

> Briefly, I would like to create two RPMs:
>
> - one that compiles/builds and installs the package (i.e. a source  
> RPM)
> - one that just installs the package (i.e. I would have pre-built the
> package myself).
>

Typically rpm transforms a SRPM -> a set of binary packages.

Are you asking for a binary package that also builds? Otherwise
you seem to be asking for 1 RPM, which will have both a *.src.rpm
as well as the a binary rpm with what needs to be installed,
i.e. the results of the build.

> The second option is particularly important to me since I have to  
> install
> this package on machines that do not have development tools (gcc,  
> make,
> ...)
>

Yes. That is the whole goal of "packaging", being able
to install binaries reliably without building or having
to maintain a build environment.

But if I've somehow missed what you are asking, then please
ask again in other words.

73 de Jeff
Received on Sat May 23 22:37:40 2009
Driven by Jeff Johnson and the RPM project team.
Hosted by OpenPKG and Ralf S. Engelschall.
Powered by FreeBSD and OpenPKG.