Hi Stefan, following your advice I now did some updates: Am 13.02.21 um 19:39 schrieb Martin Winter:
Am 13.02.21 um 18:54 schrieb Stefan Seyfried:
Hi Martin, Thanks for the fast response, Stefan!
On 13.02.21 18:21, Martin Winter wrote: 2. Best way to add own modifications
First I thought I could just use the source zip from the original OpenBoard repository and add my modifications as a patch. However as my work contains a new image file in png format, I did not find a good way to put this file in a patch. Are there any recommendations how to do this? What about multiple Source specifiers in the spec file? Would they be approriate? How are they handled?
Now back to your question: I'd use the original tarball, add your modification as patch and add the new image as Source2: to the package. Ok, I will try that. Also as tarball with the same directory structure? Are all the Sources just unpacked to the same location during build?
My spec file now is as follows: ... Source0: OpenBoard-dev-qt5.1x.zip Source1: OpenBoard-tool-axes.tgz ... %setup -q -n OpenBoard-dev-qt5.1x %setup -a 1 -T -D -n OpenBoard-dev-qt5.1x ... This works, but I don't know exactly why ;) I found the following documentation of the %setup macro: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html-sin... In the first setup command, I'm using the -n OpenBoard-dev-qt1.5x option, because the tarball downloaded from github contains this directory as the top level directory. The tar archive specified for Source1 does not contain that top level directory. It starts one level below. I therefore added the -a option to tell setup to unpack the archive **after** changing to the named directory. I added the "1" to refer to Source1, ok? I'm using -D to avoid that this directory is cleaned before unpacking. But why the hell do I have to specify the -T? The documentation says: "-T Disable the automatic unpacking of the archives." What does this mean? If I omit that option, then a second attempt to unpack the Source0 (!) is made, which fails. So it seems that I did not really understand what -T means. Or did not really understand the %setup macro at all. I was also unable to add the file "as is", i.e. not as part of an archive. Did I miss something or is it assumed that I always pack my source files into some sort of archive? I first thought -T would exactly do this. But this seems not to be the case.
3. Version specification for such derived work
Currently I'm just using 1.6.1 as the version specifier, which does not indicate that the package contains additional work. What would be the best way to express this in a version number?
Personally, I'd probably rename the package to "OpenBoard-Martin" :-) OTOH if this is just a feature addition and if you expect to have it merged upstream soon, then just adding the patch without further rename is also fine. Yes, it is just a feature addition and not a fork. At least I hope to have it merged upstream some day (soon? Let's see!). Probably I will append some indicator to the version.
The version is now 1.6.1rc+axes. 1.6.1rc is what OpenBoard is using in their qmake project file. I append an indicator for my extension. It seems that a "-" is not allowed in version specifiers, so I'm using a "+". Thanks for your help! Martin