Re: ITP: CPML and CXML alpha installer packages
"T. Weyergraf" wrote:
> IIRC, the only problem was with the create-comp-config.sh in the ccc-rpm, which
> sets up the compiler. cpml will be handled by adam's installer and libots seems failry
> straight-forward.
libots already has a .deb which you can get with the 1.0 FORTRAN compiler .debs. But I do some
shlibs magic with cpml and cxml (I use the soname libcpml.so.0 and put an extra symlink from
/usr/lib/libcpml.so.0 to the shared lib, then put "libcpml 0 cpml" in shlibs, same with cxml), so
packages built against them will automatically depend on them through the shlibdeps mechanism.
(Isn't Debian amazing? :-)
I think this is a good enough reason to do a libots installer too, so I'll go ahead and do that and
upload today with the other two.
> I'll modify create-comp-config.sh to work on debian systems and supply a patch
> to the original, once it's done, so ppl will have to re-run the patched version, once the
> rpm itself is installed.
> Still being a complete idiot wrt debian packages, i assume a debian-installer similar
> to the one adam provided for cpml, will be able to patch the create-comp-config.sh
> script and run the result along with the ususal "debian-magic" required ;-)
Yup. Not much magic there. Except it's more convenient for postinst to use sed than a patch, so
I'll convert your patch to do it that way.
> I think, i'll do it over the coming weekend, since i do have some work today ( btw: trying to
> convince a customer to buy a fairly large debian-alpha based setup for commercial
> server usage - very exciting after my years of SPARC/Solaris stuff - hopefully compaq
> supports my effort ;-)
Great!
> Anyway, two questions remain:
> 1. is this patch-approach acceptable for The Debian Way (TM) ?
Of course. :-)
> 2. will compaq sue the crap out of me, if i distribute a patch ?
I'm pretty sure they won't. The libots/cpml/cxml "license" doesn't even restrict redistribution of
the libraries (if it did, people would not be able to distribute statically-linked binaries, so
there would be no point in including the static libs). We're just not doing that because they
don't like others to distribute them and we want to be good netizens and make them happy.
The create-comp-config.sh script is a trivial little thing in plain text for all to see, so I'm
pretty certain they won't object to patching it, though it would be good to get a second opinion
from someone with more authority... And I need to know this too, since I'll have to distribute
such a patch or sed with the installer! Now if we were making binary patches to their libs, they
might object to that. :-)
The other issue is forward compatibility with create-comp-config.sh in future ccc packages. The
installer package tells the user it's only guaranteed to work on the specific RPM filename/version
given, but (s)he is welcome to try it with newer versions if necessary. I hope create-comp-config
doesn't change much, so this forward compatibility will remain; in any case, a sed script is more
likely to keep working than a patch because it just looks for and replaces specific words instead
of entire lines.
Thanks for helping to make this happen!
-Adam P.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!
Reply to: