Looking for testers: RPM 4.9 alpha

Erik van Pienbroek erik at vanpienbroek.nl
Tue Nov 30 20:22:18 UTC 2010

Panu Matilainen schreef op di 30-11-2010 om 22:10 [+0200]:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> > If I understand your blog entry correctly then we (the Fedora MinGW SIG)
> > are recommended to use something like this:
> >
> > %__mingw32_provides %{_mingw32_findprovides}
> > %__mingw32_requires %{_mingw32_findrequires}
> >
> > Is this correct or do you recommend something different?
> That alone wont do anything at all, to create a new "file attribute" 
> called mingw32 you'd add a file like this to a suitable package, 
> mingw32-filesystem probably:
> /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs/mingw32.attr:
> %__mingw32_requires	/usr/lib/rpm/mingw32-find-requires.sh
> %__mingw32_provides	/usr/lib/rpm/mingw32-find-provides.sh
> %__mingw32_magic	^PE32 executable for MS Windows.* 80386 32-bit$
> The magic rule is based on what 'file -b <file>' outputs for mingw32 
> executables and dll's - the above includes both, but you can make it 
> tighter to only include DLL's or have different extractors for DLL's and 
> EXE's by creating two rules instead of just one etc. Or if libmagic 
> strings aren't good ("fakedll" binaries from Wine would match the above 
> rule), path based regexes can be used too. It all depends on what makes 
> sense in a given scenario.
> You could also easily have a mingw32-specific pkg-config dependency 
> extractor which uses a different namespace than the regular pkgconfig(foo) 
> and only activates on .pc files from the mingw32 sys-root directory.
> And with necessary mingw32-specific .attr files in place through 
> buildrequires, there's no need for override kludges in each and every 
> mingw32 spec.

Ah yes, thanks for the detailed information. This sure looks interesting
for us! I'll try to play around a bit with this in a mock environment
and see if it's possible to update our packaging guidelines to make use
of it.


Erik van Pienbroek

More information about the devel mailing list