httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Graham Leggett" <>
Subject Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
Date Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:22:12 GMT
William A. Rowe, Jr. said:

> The problem is that packaging is almost a 20/20 hindsite game.  There's
> no way we should expect that all of these many platform specifics can
> all be maintained pre-release.  That's why, in the Win32 .msi case,
> there is a seperate httpd/httpd/win32-msi/trunk/ containing the win32
> packaging flavor.  It doesn't get fixed for a specific release until
> we know exactly what needed to be fixed :)
> I'm concerned that the current .spec solution is wrong; it's very
> platform specific (platform meaning deployment mechanics, in this
> case, I'm not slamming non-unix rpm implementations).  Perhaps we
> rejigger the tree to
>    httpd/
>      package/
>        roll-release/
>        win32-msi/
>        rpm/
>        pkg/
> Thoughts?

The spec file needs to end up as "httpd.spec" in the root of the tarball
so that "rpmbuild -tb httpd-2.0.55.tar.gz" works, so keeping it in a
separate tree isn't going to work properly.

The problem remains though - people change stuff within the tree, which
affects the packaging, and this only surfaces when a release is rolled.

> In the interim; is this a showstopper?  Do we generally do the right
> thing (e.g. without changes, can we package up using the existing
> rpm files?)  Obviously 2.0.54 was mispackaged as well, it's minimum
> apr package dependency should have been 0.9.6 apr, not 0.9.5.

It's not a showstopper no. In the mean time I have been producing SRPM
source archives that contain the original pristine httpd source, and a
"fixed" httpd.spec file. They are available from the binaries/rpm/SRPM
directory in the distribution directory.


View raw message