Re: [Ltib] spec file pulling from CVS

[Stuart Hughes]

Hi Andrea,

The reason it's not recommended is that I went through this loop before 
with git/CVS/svn.  The conclusion was that providing a way to do 
directory builds is okay, but LTIB should not be figuring out how to do 
the fetch/update/modification SCM proceedures for the contents of the 
directory.  It's better that the developer takes full control of this, 
that way we can support anything, so long as it's a directory build.

The other reason is that in the end to make an actual release (ISO) you 
need to freeze the package in terms of pristine sources + patches.  So 
when you're done with CVS you should make a "fixed" spec file that 
references some source tarball+patches.

Also, for general packages (those which you're not actively developing 
yourself, such as bash, ssh etc) you would not normally expect to be 
pulling regular updates of those, you're better in those cases to just 
use what's in and tested, or if you must update to a set of known source 
(e.g, those used in other distros).

Note: by way of example, there are a few packages such as the 
kernel/u-boot that already have directory build options 
(kernel26-dir-build.spec.in, u-boot-dir-build.spec.in).  These in 
combination with the config system and the spec body templates they 
reference allow you to switch between directory building and fixed spec 
file building.

Regards, Stuart

Andrea Galbusera wrote:
> Hi Stuart,
>
> On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 18:06 +0000, Stuart Hughes wrote:
> > Hi Andrea,
> >
> > Yes this is possible, but not necessarily recommended.
> >
> > Basically to do this for CVS (or any other SCM) system you basically 
> > need a spec file that is a variation of a directory build style .spec. 
> > The key is to have no source/patch references and a custom %prep section 
> > and to define the buildsubdir
>
> Thank you for your quick reply.
> What I see in your .spec example sounds more or less like what I need.
> But, before giving it a try, please clarify the reason why you say this
> is not "necessarily recommended". 
> Is this a matter of being a 'non standard' way to build a system
> component in ltib or is there any particular side-effect I have to take
> into account? 
>
> Of course, my need is limited to a time in the development cycle, when
> is more important to have a quick and safe way of including the latest
> version, than having a rock stable older one. I'm planning to give other
> developers the option to choose between this bleeding-edge build and a
> more stable and tested package built from a source archive: I think to
> add a ltib menu option to make this possible. Does it sound reasonable
> to you?
>
> Regards,
> Andrea