| 4:01:05 AM PST - Sat, Feb 11th 2012 |
|
I would like us to consider another change in the naming convention.
Instead of: Nwchem-6.1-2012-Feb-10.tar.gz
could you use the most common way: Nwchem-6.1.0.tar.gz?
The current naming causes really a lot of troubles when packaging an RPM.
Apart from an unnecessary complication in the spec file (i don't think it's the right place to describe all the details,
still I describe some of them below)
i feel Nwchem-6.1.2012.02.10-X.{i686,x86_64}.rpm looks ugly compared to Nwchem-6.1.0-X.{i686,x86_64}.rpm
On a positive side i have (experimental) RPMS of 6.1 version (Feb 8) ready. They are accessible through software package managers,
for example for CentOS5:
$ yum install wget
$ cd /etc/yum.repos.d/
$ wget http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/marcindulak/CentOS_CentOS-5/home:marcindul...
It's good to set enabled=0 in /etc/yum.repos.d/home:marcindulak.repo so you don't get other updates from there,
and then:
$ yum install nwchem --enablerepo=home_marcindulak
or as direct download http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/marcindulak/CentOS_CentOS-5/
Build logs are avaliable (i run a small set of tests during build), for example
https://build.opensuse.org/package/rawlog?arch=i586&package=nwchem-6.1&project=hom...
For yast on openSUSE see https://wiki.fysik.dtu.dk/cmr/install/install.html#installation-with-a-package-manger
Let me explain some of the problems caused by the current name of the source.
RPM assumes naming of name-version-release.{i686,x86_64}.rpm, where release traditionally denotes a change in RPM build process,
not in the source (see http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/ch-rpm-file-format.html).
Dashes are not allowed in version nor release.
Due to this requirement Nwchem-6.1-2012-Feb-10-X.{i686,x86_64}.rpm would be interpreted as:
name=Nwchem-6.1-2012-Feb
version=10
release=X
so package managers like (yum, yast, ...) would consider different nwchem RPMS as different programs, not different
versions of the same program!
Therefore i would choose to name the RPM Nwchem-6.1.2012.Feb.10-X.{i686,x86_64}.rpm (note the dots instead of dashes).
The problem would be that a future December 2012 Nwchem-6.1.2012.Dec.DD-Y would be considered earlier than the February release.
Therefore I would create an internal (in the RPM spec file) table of numeric values of months so the name would become
Nwchem-6.1.2012.02.10-X.{i686,x86_64}.rpm.
Marcin
|