New Draft Packaging Guideline - Fixing Gconf schema registration

[Shawn Starr]

Hello everyone,

I have created a draft guideline using OpenSuSE's existing macros.gconf2 script for Fedora.

You can find this at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/GConf

I have done an initial test with the .spec file mentioned as an example in this draft. Seems to work fine. Since this the first iteration, I would like people to comment so we can get this finalized for Fedora 12 and rejoice in speedy installs and yum updates.

Thanks!

--
Shawn Starr
Software Developer, Open Source Grid Development Center (OSGDC)
Platform Computing
3760 14th Avenue
Markham, ON L3R3T7
direct: 905.948.4229
http://www.platform.com

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Shawn Starr wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have created a draft guideline using OpenSuSE's existing macros.gconf2 script for Fedora.
>
> You can find this at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/GConf
>
> I have done an initial test with the .spec file mentioned as an example in this draft. Seems to work fine. Since this the first iteration, I would like people to comment so we can get this finalized for Fedora 12 and rejoice in speedy installs and yum updates.

I've added some more comments to the page along with a possibility for
simpler rpm macros that don't use %posttrans since that doesn't seem to
have any speed gains.  Note that I've never coded rpm macros before and
I haven't tested them (gotta sleep sometime):

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/GConf#Compa...

mclasen, would the new macros or something like them be acceptable to you?

-Toshio

[Matthias Clasen]

On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 23:50 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/GConf#Compa...
>
> mclasen, would the new macros or something like them be acceptable to you?

Sure, looks fine to me in general.

Small nit: I think for the 'obsoleting schema1' case, you need to have
some "if [ -f "$schema" ]; " in there somewhere, since you don't know
which version was previously installed.

That also brings up the point that it is hard to know when to drop this
obsoleting call, but that is nothing new and not that important, it
happens relatively rarely that schemas get dropped.

In %gconf_schema_upgrade, I think you want to remove to copy
in /var/lib/rpm-state/gconf regardless of the outcome of the comparison.

As far as owning the directory, I think it should be owned by whichever
package ends up installing the macros.

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 23:50 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/GConf#Compa...
> >
> > mclasen, would the new macros or something like them be acceptable to you?
>
> Sure, looks fine to me in general.
>
> Small nit: I think for the 'obsoleting schema1' case, you need to have
> some "if [ -f "$schema" ]; " in there somewhere, since you don't know
> which version was previously installed.

Thanks, I was relying too much on >/dev/null || : to protect us.  Fixed now.
> That also brings up the point that it is hard to know when to drop this
> obsoleting call, but that is nothing new and not that important, it
> happens relatively rarely that schemas get dropped.

Yeah, we currently leave that up to the maintainer (by not mentioning it
at all).  If you have thoughts on how long is good enough, I'll be happy
to add a note about it.
> In %gconf_schema_upgrade, I think you want to remove to copy
> in /var/lib/rpm-state/gconf regardless of the outcome of the comparison.

Good catch.  Fixed.
> As far as owning the directory, I think it should be owned by whichever
> package ends up installing the macros.

Sounds right.  The only constraint is that the macros are needed at
build time and the directory is needed at install time.  So if we put it
in the GConf2 package, we'd want to add it to the BuildRequires.

-Toshio