[mythtv] About packaging CVS versions

bishop bishop at platypus.bc.ca
Fri Jun 6 10:18:48 EDT 2003


Dwight,

That's a nifty-sounding script.  It's unfortunate about Isaac's 
decision, but a least those of us with strict RPM-only policies will 
still be able to use the latest MythTV code while it's still crunchy in 
milk, as well as enabling installation in remote locations (where 
there's no tech available, like my mom's house .. because I KNOW she'll 
want one of these when mine's finally built and she sees it)

No way to get around problem-detection through automated packaging, I 
guess, if we can't build the RPMs from CVS.  This has helped me at work 
an immense amount, just as something that whines via email.  Package 
comparison, automated builds, it's all about letting the machine do the 
crunching while you're at the Taco Bell.  (mmmm, cronned apt-CD creation...)

Those of use who're really crazy about all this will will have to just 
live with the fact that rpm -V will hate itself after an update via the 
script.  I think I can live with that.  8-)

Does your script take into account the myriad ./configure differences 
between the RPM distros (and deb and gentoo) ?  I know they should be 
similar, but it's not always the case, and I'm wondering how you're 
pulling the specific configure options (%{_libdir} and all that) from 
the machine's macro set.

  - bish

Dwight Hubbard wrote:
> I have a script that does a cvs checkout and install of the current cvs
> version that with a little polish could be used to allow people to easily
> install the current CVS version.  I've actually been working a bit on
> adding some stuff to it to install the needed prereqs before doing the CVS
> checkouts.
> 
> Of course it doesn't make RPMs, but it should work with only minor
> modifications on debian, and gentoo in addition to RPM distributions.
> 
> 
>>Hi,
>>
>>I am packaging the mythtv, xmltv and further required dependencies in
>>rpms format. Some time ago (sorry couldn't find a reference) it was
>>discussed whether it was a good thing to package CVS versions. The
>>consent back then was not to do so. I think the arguments were that
>>users would not be able to identify the CVS checkout date in their bug
>>reports.
>>
>>I have gotten lately many requests for packaging the CVS versions and
>>they all have valid reasons to do so (bug fixes, new hardware), so I'd
>>like to bring this up again.
>>
>>Would it be acceptable to package CVS versions denoting the checkout
>>date in the version (or rather the release) field? Something like
>>mythsomething-0.9-cvs20030614.1?
>>--
> 
> 
> 
> 



More information about the mythtv-dev mailing list