Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [pcgen] RPM for Fedora Linux

Expand Messages
  • VinceS
    Hello: The RPM spec file for PCGen is submitted for review and comment: http://www.4shared.com/file/N_YYcXUj/pcgen.html Most of it will probably be garble (it
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 18, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello:

      The RPM spec file for PCGen is submitted for review and comment: http://www.4shared.com/file/N_YYcXUj/pcgen.html
      Most of it will probably be garble (it is to me), but the fields to look at are: Name, Version, License, Source, Summary, URL, the %description section, and the desktop item fields. The Summary/Description blurb was lifted from the PCGen home page. :-)

      For those who wish to help by testing and/or can't wait, the <unsigned> binary RPM can be got here: http://www.4shared.com/file/m4lvrfxn/pcgen-5164-1ajrnoarch.html

      Checksum:
      md5sum: 0fccfb8f956f76dba86ee60c41389574
      I see no reason why this RPM should not work on <any> RPM-based Linux distro (Red Hat, CentOS, Mandriva, OpenSuSE, PCLinuxOS, etc), so long as it has a registered (with RPM) version of Java (Oracle/Sun or OpenJDK, jre >= 1.6.0) and is LSB-compliant (desktop-file-utils). In any case: both are available for all distros that I know of. It has been thoroughly tested and works perfectly here on both F13.i686 (w/Sun JRE-1.6.0_u23) and F14.i686 (w/OpenJDK), as well as legacy F8.i386 (with JRE-1.6.0_u23). I hope that this can be a "generic" Linux RPM.

      My main concern is: whether or not this RPM will work on a 64-bit Linux OS that does <NOT> have 32-bit JRE installed - i.e.: is it truly "noarch"? Since I cannot build/test on any other distros nor any 64-bit, I would most appreciate feedback on those OSs.

      The source RPM (SRPM, *.src.rpm) will be made available when this is "officially" approved. I will not submit to the RPMME repo until "officially" approved.

      Regards,
      VJS


      --- In pcgen_developers@yahoogroups.com, "hlingler" <hlingler@...> wrote:
      >
      > Thanks.
      >
      > All of the various RPM build tools/environment will be required (already are here). The only other requirement that I see is the run-time requirement for JRE >= 1.6.0. I see no reason why PCGen can't be "agnostic" with respect to Fedora release version and ARCH. Otherwise, only minor edits to the spec file should be necessary for each new update to PCGen. Certainly, I can only support the stable version of PCGen.
      >
      > V
      >
      > --- In pcgen_developers@yahoogroups.com, James Dempsey <jdempsey@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi Vince,
      > >
      > > Welcome to the developers group.
      > >
      > > Having a Fedora RPM would fantastic.
      > >
      > > Out of interest - what tools will be necessary to prepare the RPM?
      > > What changes will be required for each new release of PCGen?
      > >
      > > I would recommend basing your work off the 5.16.4 release as we will
      > > probably only do the linux builds as prod releases unless someone
      > > volunteers to do them every could of weeks when we do the alphas etc.
      > >
      > > Cheers,
      > > James Dempsey
      > > PCGen Code SB
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > On 17 January 2011 14:29, VinceS <hlingler@> wrote:
      > > > OK, I've joined this group too, and I'll start work on an RPM spec file... . May take a little while to get to it, but I'll get it done.
      > > >
      > > > V
      > > >
      > > > --- In pcgen_developers@yahoogroups.com, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg@> wrote:
      > > >>
      > > >> And a bump for our developers - Vince, you'll also want to make sure you're
      > > >> subscribed to the developers list :).
      > > >>
      > > >> K
      > > >>
      > > >> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Martijn Verburg
      > > >> <martijnverburg@>wrote:
      > > >>
      > > >> > Yes we'd be interested!
      > > >> >
      > > >> > I've copied in the developers mailing list where this discussion should
      > > >> > continue :)
      > > >> >
      > > >> > K
      > > >> >
      > > >> >
      > > >> > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 6:46 PM, VinceS <hlingler@> wrote:
      > > >> >
      > > >> >>
      > > >> >>
      > > >> >> P.S. Any interest in having an RPM for Fedora Linux? I can package stuff,
      > > >> >> and belong to a 3rd-party repo (http://rpmme.info). I'd be willing to do
      > > >> >> so if there's any interest. Should be simple (famous last words...).
      > > >> >>
      > > >> >> V
      > >
      >
    • VinceS
      ... binary RPM can be got here: http://www.4shared.com/file/m4lvrfxn/pcgen-5164-1ajrnoarch.html ... distro (Red Hat, CentOS, Mandriva, OpenSuSE,
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 20, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In pcgen_developers@yahoogroups.com, "VinceS" <hlingler@...> wrote:

        > For those who wish to help by testing and/or can't wait, the <unsigned> binary RPM can be got here: http://www.4shared.com/file/m4lvrfxn/pcgen-5164-1ajrnoarch.html
        >
        > Checksum:
        > md5sum: 0fccfb8f956f76dba86ee60c41389574
        > I see no reason why this RPM should not work on <any> RPM-based Linux distro (Red Hat, CentOS, Mandriva, OpenSuSE, PCLinuxOS, etc), so long as it has a registered (with RPM) version of Java (Oracle/Sun or OpenJDK, jre >= 1.6.0) and is LSB-compliant (desktop-file-utils). In any case: both are available for all distros that I know of. It has been thoroughly tested and works perfectly here on both F13.i686 (w/Sun JRE-1.6.0_u23) and F14.i686 (w/OpenJDK), as well as legacy F8.i386 (with JRE-1.6.0_u23). I hope that this can be a "generic" Linux RPM.
        >
        > My main concern is: whether or not this RPM will work on a 64-bit Linux OS that does <NOT> have 32-bit JRE installed - i.e.: is it truly "noarch"? Since I cannot build/test on any other distros nor any 64-bit, I would most appreciate feedback on those OSs.
        >


        I asked the folks at FedoraForum to help test, and the answer appears to be "just fine": http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=257753

        Note that the RPM was built on F13.x86.


        :-)
        V
      • Martijn Verburg
        Hi Vince, That s great! I guess we now need to make this part of our regular build process, are you familiar with our existing build process? K
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 16, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Vince,

          That's great!  I guess we now need to make this part of our regular build process, are you familiar with our existing build process?

          K

          On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:33 AM, VinceS <hlingler@...> wrote:
           


          --- In pcgen_developers@yahoogroups.com, "VinceS" <hlingler@...> wrote:

          > For those who wish to help by testing and/or can't wait, the <unsigned> binary RPM can be got here: http://www.4shared.com/file/m4lvrfxn/pcgen-5164-1ajrnoarch.html
          >
          > Checksum:
          > md5sum: 0fccfb8f956f76dba86ee60c41389574
          > I see no reason why this RPM should not work on <any> RPM-based Linux distro (Red Hat, CentOS, Mandriva, OpenSuSE, PCLinuxOS, etc), so long as it has a registered (with RPM) version of Java (Oracle/Sun or OpenJDK, jre >= 1.6.0) and is LSB-compliant (desktop-file-utils). In any case: both are available for all distros that I know of. It has been thoroughly tested and works perfectly here on both F13.i686 (w/Sun JRE-1.6.0_u23) and F14.i686 (w/OpenJDK), as well as legacy F8.i386 (with JRE-1.6.0_u23). I hope that this can be a "generic" Linux RPM.
          >
          > My main concern is: whether or not this RPM will work on a 64-bit Linux OS that does <NOT> have 32-bit JRE installed - i.e.: is it truly "noarch"? Since I cannot build/test on any other distros nor any 64-bit, I would most appreciate feedback on those OSs.
          >


          I asked the folks at FedoraForum to help test, and the answer appears to be "just fine": http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=257753

          Note that the RPM was built on F13.x86.


          :-)
          V


        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.