How can I make a devel rpm?
I would like to know how to make a devel rpm for a package that I have compiled? Is there a quick and dirty method or do I have to make my own spec file? Thanks! -- Marshall "Nothing is impossible, we just do not have all the anwsers to make the impossible, possible."
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:08:02AM -0400, Marshall Heartley wrote:
I would like to know how to make a devel rpm for a package that I have compiled? Is there a quick and dirty method or do I have to make my own spec file?
checkinstall ? HTH /Jon -- Whatever rocks your boat!
checkinstall ?
How can I get checkinstall to make the devel package? Is there a switch that I need to give it? I prefer to use checkinstall but I am not that familiar with it. A little push in a general direction will help me out! Thanks for the reply! -- Marshall "Nothing is impossible, we just do not have all the anwsers to make the impossible, possible."
* Marshall Heartley
How can I get checkinstall to make the devel package? Is there a switch that I need to give it? I prefer to use checkinstall but I am not that familiar with it. A little push in a general direction will help me out!
~> less /usr/share/doc/packages/checkinstall/README -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org
<snip>
~> less /usr/share/doc/packages/checkinstall/README
Thanks for the help but, I really could not find what I needed. I must be dense! Can anyone kind of spell it out for me on how to do this? Thanks! -- Marshall "Nothing is impossible, we just do not have all the anwsers to make the impossible, possible."
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:39:26AM -0400, Marshall Heartley wrote:
checkinstall ?
How can I get checkinstall to make the devel package? Is there a switch that I need to give it? I prefer to use checkinstall but I am not that familiar with it. A little push in a general direction will help me out!
ahemmm... sorry, I just saw "rpm of... something I compiled..." I think I misunderstood. Maybe you *should* be writing a spec file, and whatnot... Other than that, I wouldn't be surprised if checkinstall could do what you need, but I'm not the one to tell you how... :P
Thanks for the reply!
NP /Jon -- Whatever rocks your boat!
<snip>
I think I misunderstood. Maybe you *should* be writing a spec file, and whatnot...
Other than that, I wouldn't be surprised if checkinstall could do what you need, but I'm not the one to tell you how... :P
Well it is looking like I need to take a crash course on rpm spec file writing then ;) Unless someone else has any ideas? Thanks! -- Marshall "Nothing is impossible, we just do not have all the anwsers to make the impossible, possible."
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 17:25, Marshall Heartley wrote:
Well it is looking like I need to take a crash course on rpm spec file writing then ;)
Unless someone else has any ideas?
You can give EPM (ESP Package Manager - http://www.easysw.com/epm) a try. This is a very easy tool to use and one of it's advantages is that it can build native packages for different platforms, using the same definition file. (rpm, deb - Linux; pkg - Sun; swinstall - HP-UX; etc). The definition file (List file) is very straight-forward to create. I started using it for a project that we ported to HP-UX, Linux and Solaris and it worked to easy that I now use it to create all rpm packages I need to make. It is written by the same company that makes CUPS. It also has a graphical setup tool, but I have never used that. Just never got round to compiling the graphical part. :-) HTH -- Andre Truter Software Engineer Registered Linux user #185282 ICQ #40935899 AIM: trusoftzaf http://www.trusoft.za.net ~ If you are in control, you are going too slow - Mario Andretti ~ Disclaimer and Confidentiality Warning This message is intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are notified that any distribution, use of or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately. The views and opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender of this message and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of ATIO. Consequently, ATIO does not accept responsibility for such views and opinions and this message should not be read as representing the views and opinions of ATIO without subsequent written confirmation. Each page attached hereto must also be read in conjunction with this disclaimer.
You can give EPM (ESP Package Manager - http://www.easysw.com/epm) a try. This is a very easy tool to use and one of it's advantages is that it can build native packages for different platforms, using the same definition file. (rpm, deb - Linux; pkg - Sun; swinstall - HP-UX; etc).
The definition file (List file) is very straight-forward to create.
I started using it for a project that we ported to HP-UX, Linux and Solaris and it worked to easy that I now use it to create all rpm packages I need to make.
It is written by the same company that makes CUPS.
It also has a graphical setup tool, but I have never used that. Just never got round to compiling the graphical part. :-)
Thanks, I will look into it! -- Marshall "Nothing is impossible, we just do not have all the anwsers to make the impossible, possible."
On 08/21/2003 11:25 PM, Marshall Heartley wrote:
<snip>
I think I misunderstood. Maybe you *should* be writing a spec file, and whatnot...
Other than that, I wouldn't be surprised if checkinstall could do what you need, but I'm not the one to tell you how... :P
Well it is looking like I need to take a crash course on rpm spec file writing then ;)
Unless someone else has any ideas?
What I have done sometimes in the past is to install the source rpm of a package, get newer sources, edit the spec file for the newer sources, maybe other edits needed for the spec file depending on the differences between the versions, etc. It isn't the easiest, but it sometimes works well. YMMV. -- Joe Morris New Tribes Mission Email Address: Joe_Morris@ntm.org Web Address: http://www.mydestiny.net/~joe_morris Registered Linux user 231871 God said, I AM that I AM. I say, by the grace of God, I am what I am.
<snip>
What I have done sometimes in the past is to install the source rpm of a package, get newer sources, edit the spec file for the newer sources, maybe other edits needed for the spec file depending on the differences between the versions, etc. It isn't the easiest, but it sometimes works well. YMMV.
I have done this also. But in this case, I have compiled a package from sources and am trying to make a devel package. I'm looking at a piece of software that a list member pointed out but, it may be that I need to learn to write the spec files. Thanks for the idea. -- Marshall "Nothing is impossible, we just do not have all the anwsers to make the impossible, possible."
On 08/22/2003 06:33 PM, Marshall Heartley wrote:
I have done this also. But in this case, I have compiled a package from sources and am trying to make a devel package. I'm looking at a piece of software that a list member pointed out but, it may be that I need to learn to write the spec files.
I think you are misunderstanding something. When you compile a package, say from source, you will end up with BOTH, the package and the "-devel" package, which would be the headers and files needed to compile other packages. If you install from source via configure, make, checkinstall, the resulting rpm package includes both the rpm"binary" PLUS the "devel" in the one package. You only really need to split them if you do NOT compile any programs, as if you do not self compile any programs, these just take up disk space and are never used. HTH -- Joe Morris New Tribes Mission Email Address: Joe_Morris@ntm.org Web Address: http://www.mydestiny.net/~joe_morris Registered Linux user 231871 God said, I AM that I AM. I say, by the grace of God, I am what I am.
<snip>
I think you are misunderstanding something. When you compile a package, say from source, you will end up with BOTH, the package and the "-devel" package, which would be the headers and files needed to compile other packages. If you install from source via configure, make, checkinstall, the resulting rpm package includes both the rpm"binary" PLUS the "devel" in the one package. You only really need to split them if you do NOT compile any programs, as if you do not self compile any programs, these just take up disk space and are never used. HTH
Ok I did kind of misunderstood! So basically all I have to do is go into the spec file and split them. I will give this a shot. Thanks for putting some clarity on the issue. The package that I am trying to make a rpm of (Gimp 1.3.18) I do want the devel files. I do compile plug-ins for Gimp. Thanks! -- Marshall "Nothing is impossible, we just do not have all the anwsers to make the impossible, possible."
On 08/22/2003 08:56 PM, Marshall Heartley wrote:
Ok I did kind of misunderstood! So basically all I have to do is go into the spec file and split them. I will give this a shot. Thanks for putting some clarity on the issue. The package that I am trying to make a rpm of (Gimp 1.3.18) I do want the devel files. I do compile plug-ins for Gimp.
Sorry if I still am not clear since I have not been following the whole thread. Didn't you say you compiled Gimp 1.3.18 via configure, make, then checkinstall? If that is correct, you should have the files the "devel" package would have installed, had the package been done by SuSE. There is nothing more to install for Gimp, only the plug-ins you might want. The development headers, etc., the plug-ins would need from Gimp are there already. Some files might be a pre-requisite for the compile that would have been installed by installing a SuSE packaged devel package, but by installing via configure, make, and checkinstall, those files are there and you should be able to compile your plug-ins. HTH. -- Joe Morris New Tribes Mission Email Address: Joe_Morris@ntm.org Web Address: http://www.mydestiny.net/~joe_morris Registered Linux user 231871 God said, I AM that I AM. I say, by the grace of God, I am what I am.
Sorry if I still am not clear since I have not been following the whole thread. Didn't you say you compiled Gimp 1.3.18 via configure, make, then checkinstall? If that is correct, you should have the files the "devel" package would have installed, had the package been done by SuSE. There is nothing more to install for Gimp, only the plug-ins you might want. The development headers, etc., the plug-ins would need from Gimp are there already. Some files might be a pre-requisite for the compile that would have been installed by installing a SuSE packaged devel package, but by installing via configure, make, and checkinstall, those files are there and you should be able to compile your plug-ins. HTH.
No you were clear the first time. I did not know that the development as well as the program itself were all in the rpm made by checkinstall. What I was trying to get at is building a set of rpms like SuSE's so I could install the Gimp package on my wife's machine. She does not need the libs so I was going to do seperate rpms for Gimp. One with the program and another with the devel libs in it. Sorry if I did not explain clearly enough. Thanks again for the explanation.
Jon Clausen
checkinstall ?
Please no! checkinstall is a huge cluge that shouldn't have been written in the first place. Learn how to make Spec files for RPM, it'll pay off large. Things like supporting more then one version of a distribution can *only* be done in a spec file and in the long run it's easier to maintain a spec file. BTW, I doubt that checkinstall can produce split up packages. Philipp
<snip>
Please no! checkinstall is a huge cluge that shouldn't have been written in the first place.
Learn how to make Spec files for RPM, it'll pay off large. Things like supporting more then one version of a distribution can *only* be done in a spec file and in the long run it's easier to maintain a spec file.
BTW, I doubt that checkinstall can produce split up packages.
Any good tutorials that I can use to learn? Mainly written in easy to understand terms? I have been using checkinstall because I tried a few times to write a spec file and got more frustrated than productive. I will try again. All I'm trying to do is make a package for the gimp version that I compiled. Specifically a gimp-devel package. Any pointers in that direction? -- Marshall "Nothing is impossible, we just do not have all the anwsers to make the impossible, possible."
Op donderdag 21 augustus 2003 21:26, schreef Marshall Heartley:
<snip>
Please no! checkinstall is a huge cluge that shouldn't have been written in the first place.
Learn how to make Spec files for RPM, it'll pay off large. Things like supporting more then one version of a distribution can *only* be done in a spec file and in the long run it's easier to maintain a spec file.
BTW, I doubt that checkinstall can produce split up packages.
Any good tutorials that I can use to learn? Mainly written in easy to understand terms? I have been using checkinstall because I tried a few times to write a spec file and got more frustrated than productive. I will try again. All I'm trying to do is make a package for the gimp version that I compiled. Specifically a gimp-devel package. Any pointers in that direction?
The rpm bible, still usefull after years! http://www.redhat.com/docs/books/max-rpm/ -- Richard Bos Without a home the journey is endless
<snip>
The rpm bible, still usefull after years! http://www.redhat.com/docs/books/max-rpm/
Thanks, I will have a look! -- Marshall "Nothing is impossible, we just do not have all the anwsers to make the impossible, possible."
On Thursday 21 August 2003 23:57, Philipp Thomas wrote:
Please no! checkinstall is a huge cluge that shouldn't have been written in the first place.
Learn how to make Spec files for RPM, it'll pay off large. Things like supporting more then one version of a distribution can *only* be done in a spec file and in the long run it's easier to maintain a spec file.
It's been a while since I looked at it, but when you roll your own rpm don't you have to know every single file that is going to be installed and where it will be installed? How do you accompolish this? checkinstall has its place. You've downloaded software from source and you want to use it. If you use checkinstall you can be up and running in almost the identical time it takes for ./configure-make-make install and you've kept your package management system in order. Its a no brainer. Of course if you want to make rpms for distribution that is a different matter. Jethro
Jethro Cramp
It's been a while since I looked at it, but when you roll your own rpm don't you have to know every single file that is going to be installed and where it will be installed? How do you accompolish this?
Use a BuildRoot and then install accordingly. For instance for makefiles that support DESTDIR simply do 'make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT' and everything gets installed in the BuildRoot. Now make sure there is no %clean in the specfile (remove it if present) and the build root directory will not get deleted. Now simply do a 'find /path/to/build_root' and you get a list of all directories and files the installation created. From that list it's easy to create a %files section. This also shows the advantage of using rpm over checkinstall: you install to a build root and *not* into the running system. Therefor you - don't have to be root to build the rpm - you don't overwrite installed software and thus have less chance to mess up your system. Philipp -- Philipp Thomas work: pthomas@suse.de private: philipp.thomas@t-link.de
participants (8)
-
Andre Truter -
Jethro Cramp -
Joe Morris (NTM) -
Jon Clausen -
Marshall Heartley -
Patrick Shanahan -
Philipp Thomas -
Richard Bos