[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: autotools not suited to proprietary development?
From: |
Tim Van Holder |
Subject: |
Re: autotools not suited to proprietary development? |
Date: |
Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:50:49 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909) |
Ryan McDougall wrote:
> should I understand that (for example) when redhat/debian build lets say
> libc for packaging as a binary, they download a tarball and do a
> complicated form
> './configure --prefix=/usr && make && make install' on a bare machine
> without any libc, then tar up the result for an RPM or DEB?
>
> I have looked briefly how to make RPMs, but Ive got some missing pieces
> here...
>
> Im well aware this is getting offtopic, so if possible could you spare a
> clue and a link to a place where I can research the problem more myself?
>
> Cheers,
They do the equivalent of
<extract tarball>
<apply distro patches>
./configure --prefix=/usr <other switches as needed>
make (possibly "make check" instead)
make install DESTDIR=<distro package staging area>
cd <distro package staging area>
<build package using current dir as root dir>
I think they tend to use chroot for "make install" so non-automake trees
work as required (as do automake-based trees with non-DESTDIR-handling
custom rules), but that's basically all there is to it.
Re: autotools not suited to proprietary development?, David Fang, 2006/10/05
Re: autotools not suited to proprietary development?, Warren Young, 2006/10/06