Re: [PATCH rdma-core v2 4/4] redhat/spec: build split rpm packages

[Doug Ledford <dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2473 bytes --]

On 10/28/16 11:11 AM, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 03:10:59PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:33:57AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:

>>>  Url: http://openfabrics.org/
>>
>> I guess we should change this url to
>> https://github.com/linux-rdma/rdma-core ?
> 
> Either one works for me.

We should get the github url in.

>>>  Source: rdma-core-%{version}.tgz
>>> -BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
>>> +# https://github.com/linux-rdma/rdma-core
>>> +BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
>>
>> I always wondered why there was so much variability in spec files
>> here.. I followed the Fedora guidelines, should we copy the above into
>> the other spec file?
> 
> I believe the current Fedora guidelines actually say "just omit
> BuildRoot", because rpm will figure out a sane default by itself. The one
> with mktemp was introduced by the security-conscious/paranoid, I just
> copied it over from another of the specs I was merging together here, not
> sure what the "best" route is here now.

We won't be putting this anywhere that requires the buildroot be
specified, so I would leave it out.

>>> +%package -n librdmacm-utils
>>> +Summary: Examples for the librdmacm library
>>> +Requires: librdmacm%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
>>
>> Why the requires? Shouldn't auto shlib dependencies take care of that?
> 
> Probably. I think this was another legacy bit copied over from a
> stand-alone spec file.

Actually, no.  When you have a -utils package that goes with a library
package, standard procedure is to tie them directly like this.  The auto
dependency stuff will allow, say, librdmacm-1.1.17-1 and
librdmacm-utils-1.1.16-1 to happily satisfy each other since the later
librdmacm provides all of the sonames and apis that the -utils package
needs.  This is as designed as you want a librdamcm update to not
trigger a required update of, say, openmpi, unless there is truly a
change that requires it.  But, for the utils that go with the library,
even though we don't *have* to update them with the library, we want
that to happen automatically, so the explicit requires makes that happen
even if librdmacm-utils was excluded from the update command.


-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>    GPG Key ID: 0E572FDD
  Red Hat, Inc.
  100 E. Davie St
  Raleigh, NC 27601 USA


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 907 bytes --]