Creating a spin-off package

[Simone Caronni]

Hello,

I would like to spin-off a package which is now a sub-package of another
one.

Bacula contains 4mb of code and 40mb of docs; I would like to split them
off:

[slaanesh@3zpc0560 bacula]$ ls -alghs *tar*
3,9M -rw-rw-r--. 1 slaanesh 3,9M 19 dic 09.16 bacula-5.2.3.tar.gz
 40M -rw-rw-r--. 1 slaanesh  40M 19 dic 09.16 bacula-docs-5.2.3.tar.bz2

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=279494

Everything is rebuilt every time there's the need to apply any change;
while the docs are usually static for each release. With all the testing
done for rawhide and the rebuilding of the same packages for RHEL 4/5/6 and
Fedora 16 I lost a lot of time doing uploads for scratch builds and
mock/koji rebuilds; so I would like to get away from this. Also RHEL 4 and
5 do not allow you to specify a separate BuildArch in a subpackage; which
make "x86_64" pointless as an arch for a package containing PDF files.

bacula-docs does not really need to be part of the main package, and apart
from good packaging, rpmlint checks and packaging guidelines what is needed
to make a spinoff of the package in Fedora?

Following the same approach; after the docs I would also like to package
"bacula-gui" which is not yet packaged in Fedora; but that count as a
separate package.
I have already prepared the separate packages on my laptop.

Thanks & happy new year to everybody.
--Simone



-- 
You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of
the shore (R. W. Emerson).

[Tom Callaway]

On 01/02/2012 10:15 AM, Simone Caronni wrote:
>  bacula-docs does not really need to be part of the main package, and
>  apart from good packaging, rpmlint checks and packaging guidelines what
>  is needed to make a spinoff of the package in Fedora? 
Just a review for bacula-docs as a new package.

~tom

==
Fedora Project

[Susi Lehtola]

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 16:15:33 +0100
Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  Everything is rebuilt every time there's the need to apply any
> change;
>  while the docs are usually static for each release. With all the
>  testing done for rawhide and the rebuilding of the same packages for
>  RHEL 4/5/6 and Fedora 16 I lost a lot of time doing uploads for
>  scratch builds and mock/koji rebuilds; so I would like to get away
>  from this. Also RHEL 4 and 5 do not allow you to specify a separate
>  BuildArch in a subpackage; which make "x86_64" pointless as an arch
>  for a package containing PDF files. 
Then why not just make a --without doc option (or a %global switch) in
the spec file? Then the docs would be built by default, but you could
also skip the building of the docs when you are just working on the package.

At least in the second option the sources for the -doc package need not
be included in the srpm at all.
-- 
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 09:49:19PM +0200, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
>  On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 16:15:33 +0100
>  Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  > Everything is rebuilt every time there's the need to apply any change;
>  > while the docs are usually static for each release. With all the
>  > testing done for rawhide and the rebuilding of the same packages for
>  > RHEL 4/5/6 and Fedora 16 I lost a lot of time doing uploads for
>  > scratch builds and mock/koji rebuilds; so I would like to get away
>  > from this. Also RHEL 4 and 5 do not allow you to specify a separate
>  > BuildArch in a subpackage; which make "x86_64" pointless as an arch
>  > for a package containing PDF files.
>  
>  Then why not just make a --without doc option (or a %global switch) in
>  the spec file? Then the docs would be built by default, but you could
>  also skip the building of the docs when you are just working on the package.
>   
The end user also has to download and install the new docs package everytime
the main bacula package is updated when the -docs package is just
a subpackage (instead of a separate package).

I agree that having a separate package makes a lot of sense here.

-Toshio

[Simone Caronni]

>  The end user also has to download and install the new docs package
>  everytime
>  the main bacula package is updated when the -docs package is just
>  a subpackage (instead of a separate package).
>
>  I agree that having a separate package makes a lot of sense here.
>
>  -Toshio
>  
That's the main reason for splitting.
The only problem is that the document build system parses a header file in
the Bacula source code to get the versions to put in the front page of the
manuals.

It is acceptable to do the following during the %prep section?

%prep
%setup -q

# To get the needed info for the fake header launch the following command
in the bacula source folder:
# cat src/version.h | grep ^#define

mkdir src
cat > src/version.h << EOF
#define VERSION "5.2.3"
#define BDATE   "16 December 2011"
#define LSMDATE "16Dec11"
#define PROG_COPYRIGHT "Copyright (C) %d-2011 Free Software Foundation
Europe e.V.\n"
#define BYEAR "2011"       /* year for copyright messages in progs */
EOF

%build
%configure --with-bacula=%{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}
make %{?_smp_mflags}

Those five lines from the src/version.h file are the only thing needed from
the Bacula sources.
By creating that file the sources compile fine. Is that ok?

Thanks,
--Simone



-- 
You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of
the shore (R. W. Emerson).

[Tom Callaway]

On 01/05/2012 05:59 AM, Simone Caronni wrote:
>  The only problem is that the document build system parses a header
> file
>  in the Bacula source code to get the versions to put in the front page
>  of the manuals. 
I think it might be simpler to add a bacula-devel package that includes
the header files from the source code, then BuildRequires it for the
-docs package.

~tom

==
Fedora Project

[Simone Caronni]

Great idea!

I will do that.

Thanks,
--Simone


On 5 January 2012 16:31, Tom Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  On 01/05/2012 05:59 AM, Simone Caronni wrote:
>  > The only problem is that the document build system parses a header file
>  > in the Bacula source code to get the versions to put in the front page
>  > of the manuals.
>
>  I think it might be simpler to add a bacula-devel package that includes
>  the header files from the source code, then BuildRequires it for the
>  -docs package.
>
>  ~tom
>
>  ==
>  Fedora Project
>  


-- 
You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of
the shore (R. W. Emerson).