PuTTY 0.54 rpms (http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/)

[Gavin Henry]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 20 February 2004 10:30, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Gavin Henry wrote:
> > > I looked at your SPEC file and compared it what I had. I have the
> > > following differences:
> > >
> > > 	+ What is the reason for choosing noarch ?
> >
> > I am a beginner with building rpms, so I am trying to do as many as
> > possible.
>
> I understand.
>
> > I thought, if it was noarch it would indicate it would work on any rpm
> > distro.
>
> Well, sadly RPM doesn't have a standard for saying for which distribution
> something was made. It would have been nice even if Red Hat would have
> added something more to the Distribution-tag than only 'Red Hat Linux' so
> that one could query rpmdb for those.

I am going to make this a normal fdr one.

>
> That's why some repositories are adding distrotags. In my opinion it's
> better to have 5 identical packages with a different package name
> (release) than to have one package that's uncertain for what distro it was
> packaged for (omitting the distrotag is difficult as you can't say it will
> work for any future distribution).
>
> noarch packages is to indicate that a package works for any architecture.
> Mostly used for shell-scripts, some python/perl packages and other
> packages that don't contain architecture specific binaries.
>
> > > 	+ No desktop entry
> > > 	+ No desktop icon
> >
> > I didn't notice there was any.
>
> Well, even if there's no icon GUI programs should appear somewhere in the
> menu. If I have no icon I usually take the icon that Red Hat provides for
> the same Category so that it doesn't show up with a blank.

I will use you desktop entry, but change the names a wee bit.

>
> But putty was something that people mat recognize from the icon (when they
> move from Windows to Linux) so I thought it was important to have the same
> icon.
>
> > > 	+ No manpages (there are 2 missing since the last release though)
> >
> > I need to check for these.
> >
> > > 	+ You have a static version-less dependency for gtk+
> >
> > Again, a beginner, so all this will be changed.
>
> Well, actually if you wanted to create one package that worked for
> different Red Hat packages, this was the right way to do it. But I don't
> think it's better to tag a package for a specific distribution and then
> the requirement isn't really needed (and wrt managing the files unwanted).

Ok.

>
> > > 	+ Don't use %makeinstall where possible
> >
> > I understand this bit. You have:
> > %makeinstall -C unix -f Makefile.gtk in your specfile.
>
> Yes, since you didn't include the manpages, using %makefile would have
> forced you to include everything the developers wanted you to include.

I ment to say that I don't understand your comment here.

>
> It's always better to follow an existing infrastructure if you can. In a
> lot of case you can't though.
>
> > I know you are much better than most at doing rpms, so I will update mine
> > to include a desktop entry, pic and man files. Also, take out gtk+ in
> > requires and what is this for:
> >
> > ### FIXME: Disable missing pscp.1 and psftp.1. (Please fix upstream)
> > %{__perl} -pi.orig -e '
> > 		s|-O2|%{optflags}|g;
> > 		s|/usr/local|%{_prefix}|g;
> > 		s|^(\t\$\(INSTALL_DATA\) -m 644 ps.+)$|#$1|;
> > 	' unix/Makefile.gtk
>
> Well, I favor perl-oneliners over patches as they allow me to quickly see
> what it does without having to look for other files and sometimes lots of
> data. They also stand a fair chance of working when you update to newer
> releases and can even be automated to test if a specific patch is still
> needed.

Shouldn't you have a BuildRequires: perl then?

>
> Of course sometimes a patch is absolutely required, but if it can be done
> inline I'd rather do it like that.
>
> The first substitution replaces the normal compiler-flags to what RPM is
> normally using. The second replaces all instanced of /usr/local by the
> prefix that's defined by RPM, usually /usr. And the last substitution
> disables 2 manpages (comment above) that were rmeoved from the official
> release).
>
> > Is this built for servral version of gnome? Hence you if/else loops.
>
> Yes, this is rather sad. RH73 and earlier don't have a
> desktop-file-install utilitiy which I use to install desktop-files. So
> that's why I first query for its existance and then use it if it exists.
>
> > Again, I am learning :-)
>
> That's good ! ;)
>
> > Lastly, if I had known you had done one already, I wouldn't of done one
> > :-)
> >
> > But mine does a least work ;)
>
> Well, it's definitely better to try yourself and then look at others (than
> just look at others). If you're goal is to learn to package, anyway.

Agreed. :-)

I will post the new urls when done.

>
> Kind regards,
> --   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
> [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]

- -- 
Kind Regards,

Gavin Henry.
Director.

Open Source. Open Solutions.
http://www.suretecsystems.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFANk8veWseh9tzvqgRAooWAJ41b3aakGsgFWDqnfHbPnKXLkkHJACgmdrI
Sedy71blLw+N37qa8GWTiXg=
=Mn9l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----