Re: Building RPMs without building SRPMs?

[Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws () gmail com>]

On 03/05/2013 06:38 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2013, at 1:35 PM, morriss () wireshark org wrote:
>
> > http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=48105
> >
> > User: morriss
> > Date: 2013/03/05 01:35 PM
> >
> > Log:
> > Don't have a separate srpm-package target: we already build the SRPM while building the RPM (since r47574).
>
> Is there a compelling reason to build both at once and not to allow building an RPM without building an SRPM?  Ricardo 
> Pérez's problem wouldn't have occurred had he been able to build an RPM without building an SRPM, right?

I had a couple of reasons for building the SRPM at the same time as the RPM:

1) I like the concept of (always) having the source RPM: that way you're 
sure you have the source that matches the binary.

2) Adding the SRPM build to the RPM build adds a very minimal amount of 
time.  Doing "make rpm-package srpm-package" doubles the (already 
significant) time since it would involve doing "make dist" twice as well 
as two full compiles (from the resulting distribution tarball).

(I'll admit this is my view /now/; when I did r47574 I completely missed 
the srpm-package target--which is my own fault because I had put that 
install_desktop_files target in between the two RPM targets. :-|)

Ricardo Pérez's problem is the same as we've discussed here before: you 
now need the Qt tools to make the source distribution.  Here there's the 
twist that you need to make a source distribution to make the RPM.

(Earlier today I wanted to add a check so that "make dist" would bail 
out early if you don't have the Qt development packages installed but I 
couldn't find a way to add a dependency to that (automagic) target.  I 
looked in ui/qt/Makefile.am but got scared off by the AM_V_ 
variables--just being lazy, I didn't want to go off and read what those 
were for.)

> A *distribution* might want to build both, but if somebody's building an RPM so that people can install their 
> customized version of Wireshark as a binary (and providing the source as a tarball to anybody who wants it), would allowing 
> building just the RPM, not the SRPM, be OK?

It would certainly be OK but I think it's nice to always have the source 
available (certainly makes GPL compliance easier ;-)) and it doesn't add 
much work (for the computer doing the work).

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
            mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe