[mythtv] Building MythTV SVN Packages (rpm)

Buzz buzz at oska.com
Wed Apr 5 01:26:10 UTC 2006

Hi guys,

> I didn't put it there.  I just fixed the one that was already there.

I put it there.  Isaac told me too, as he wasn't having anything to do with
putting it in the source tree (even in contribs folder), as we are all

> Plus, the one I was referring to earlier is not the svn one, 
> but my build-from-release one that whoever made the original 
> svn one used as his starting point.

"whoever" - that was me.  :-)

I reviewed both Chris's and Axel's .spec files quite carefully, and took the
best from both, and made additions of my own to build from 'SVN'/etc.
Guys, it's quite simple really...  Your two non-svn .spec files functionally
aren't actually that different.  Yes, they LOOK very different, but that's
mostly just whitespace and comments that Chris hass gone and added, and
which I for one found most useful. 

I took Chris's "commented" .spec file, and reviewed Axel's for any changes
that appeared to have been added later (a more thorough log at the end might
have helped, but I did what I could), and looking at the logfile in my "SVN"
one (in the wiki), it shows that I pulled axel's %%{_lib} fixes from June 4
2005 into chris's version, there were no other "functional conflicts" that I
could see.   No dependancy differences, etc.

Axel, can you see anything FUNCTIONAL in your myth .spec/s that has been
added since April 2005  (where the logs say that the Chris<->Axel files
deviate) that hasn't since been "brought over" to Chris's, and
hence/hopefully to the SVN one (in wiki, by Myself and Chris now) ?

For the record, I'm refering to these files:


"SVN" (aka Me)

> > This creates issues for both the packager and the developers as it 
> > gets even more confusing as to what svn the user is talking about.
> huh?  a revision is a revision.

I agree.   I don't see a problem with atrpms releasing "releases", and SVN
users using SVN sub-releases....it's only going to be interesting if either
atrpms starts doing SVN versions, or the very SVN oriented .spec in the wiki
is used for releases, and even then, the package numbering isn't ever going
to conflict directly, so it's still a non-event.

> > We've been trying to convince Isaac that having CVS/svn 
> packaging is a 
> > good thing, if this starts being a fork war then he'll probably 
> > digress again.

Personally, I'm happy to see ANY changes made to the one in the wiki that
improve it's usability for developers, or make it's packaging more
"correct".... (where "correct" COULD be defined as 'like atrpms do it' if
there is no other reason to do it a particular way)

> I don't consider this "packaging"...  it's more "building svn 
> but letting rpm keep track of the installed files"...  no one 
> should be using these files without knowing how to build 
> packages, etc.

You'll notice.... I've never distributed a rpm/srpm based on these spec
files, and I din't think Chris is either.  :-)

> >> Maybe I'll have to take a look at what you're doing now 
> and see what 
> >> I can backport into mine.
> > 
> > I'd had preferred if you had considered merging any 
> valuable bits the 
> > other way, but it's your choice.

Please advise what bits you see as valuable that the SVN one doesn't have,
and we'll definitely add them.  


More information about the mythtv-dev mailing list