RPM spec file patches for i2c and lm_sensors 2.8.1

RPM spec file patches for i2c and lm_sensors 2.8.1

[Marc Rieffel]

I had to make these changes to be able to build i2c and lm_sensors rpms that worked.  Also, lm_sensors.init isn't included in any of the rpms.  Looks like nobody's touched these for several versions.

i2c.spec:

25c27
< %define ver 2.8.1
---
> %define ver 2.5.0
37a43,44
> Conflicts: kernel >= 2.3.38
70,72c75,77
< %dir /lib/modules/%{kversion}
< %dir /lib/modules/%{kversion}/kernel/drivers/i2c
< /lib/modules/%{kversion}/kernel/drivers/i2c/*
---
> %dir /lib/modules/%{mversion}
> %dir /lib/modules/%{mversion}/misc
> /lib/modules/%{mversion}/misc/*



And similarly for lm_sensors.spec.  Note that %{prefix}/include/linux/*.h gives conflicts with header files installed by the i2c rpm, so I had to just list the  one specific file that should be installed.




33c33
< %define kversion %(uname -r)
---
> %define kversion 2.2.14
34a35
> #Another example for the above: %define kversion 2.2.14-SMP
37c38
< %define ver 2.8.1
---
> %define ver 2.5.0
120,121d120
< #Add %{prefix}/lib to the ldconfig.
< grep "{%prefix}/lib" /etc/ld.so.conf || echo "%{prefix}/lib" >> /etc/ld.so.conf
150,155c149,150
< %dir /lib/modules/%{mversion}/kernel/drivers/i2c/
< /lib/modules/%{mversion}/kernel/drivers/i2c/*
< %dir /lib/modules/%{mversion}/kernel/drivers/i2c/busses
< /lib/modules/%{mversion}/kernel/drivers/i2c/busses/*
< %dir /lib/modules/%{mversion}/kernel/drivers/i2c/chips
< /lib/modules/%{mversion}/kernel/drivers/i2c/chips/*
---
> %dir /lib/modules/%{mversion}/misc
> /lib/modules/%{mversion}/misc/*
157c152
< %{prefix}/include/linux/sensors.h
---
> %{prefix}/include/linux/*.h

RPM spec file patches for i2c and lm_sensors 2.8.1

[Jean Delvare]

> I had to make these changes to be able to build i2c and lm_sensors
> rpms that worked.  Also, lm_sensors.init isn't included in any of the
> rpms.  Looks like nobody's touched these for several versions.

You're right, the files were untouched since May 2000. Quite a while
actually. We don't build RPMs anymore. I personnaly consider that this
is the distributor's job, not our. They do that much better than we
would.

> i2c.spec:
> 
> 25c27
> < %define ver 2.8.1
> ---
> > %define ver 2.5.0
> (...)

Please provide unified diffs if you want me to apply them to our files.

You could also consider getting in touch with Axel, who is building
quality RPM packages from our sources, using his own .spec files. Maybe
you both will agree on some version of the spec files that we should
include in our source files. Or maybe we should simply remove the RPM
directory from our source trees - that would be more honest IMHO, since
nobody here seems to be wanting to maintain them, while Axel is doing a
very great job on his side. Let packagers package, that's their job :)

-- 
Jean Delvare
http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/

RPM spec file patches for i2c and lm_sensors 2.8.1

[Marc Rieffel]

I agree that you shouldn't distribute RPMs.  That doesn't make sense for kernel modules.  

For people like me, who want to easily deploy lm_sensors across a cluster of uniform machines, it's very handy to have a spec file there so that we can build our own RPMs for specific systems with specific kernels and configurations.  Even though the spec file you had was out of date, it still saved me a lot of trouble.  

My vote would be to keep the spec files.  If nobody wants to maintain them, call them unsupported or unmaintained.

Who's Axel?  I'd be happy to work with him, or just use whatever he has or recommends.

Unified diffs attached.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean Delvare [mailto:khali@linux-fr.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 2:16 PM
> To: Marc Rieffel; Axel Thimm
> Cc: sensors@Stimpy.netroedge.com
> Subject: Re: RPM spec file patches for i2c and lm_sensors 2.8.1
> 
> 
> 
> > I had to make these changes to be able to build i2c and lm_sensors
> > rpms that worked.  Also, lm_sensors.init isn't included in 
> any of the
> > rpms.  Looks like nobody's touched these for several versions.
> 
> You're right, the files were untouched since May 2000. Quite a while
> actually. We don't build RPMs anymore. I personnaly consider that this
> is the distributor's job, not our. They do that much better than we
> would.
> 
> > i2c.spec:
> > 
> > 25c27
> > < %define ver 2.8.1
> > ---
> > > %define ver 2.5.0
> > (...)
> 
> Please provide unified diffs if you want me to apply them to 
> our files.
> 
> You could also consider getting in touch with Axel, who is building
> quality RPM packages from our sources, using his own .spec 
> files. Maybe
> you both will agree on some version of the spec files that we should
> include in our source files. Or maybe we should simply remove the RPM
> directory from our source trees - that would be more honest 
> IMHO, since
> nobody here seems to be wanting to maintain them, while Axel 
> is doing a
> very great job on his side. Let packagers package, that's their job :)
> 
> -- 
> Jean Delvare
> http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: lm_sensors.spec.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1438 bytes
Desc: lm_sensors.spec.diff
Url : http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/attachments/20031028/5f123240/lm_sensors.spec.obj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: i2c-rh.spec.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1729 bytes
Desc: i2c-rh.spec.diff
Url : http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/attachments/20031028/5f123240/i2c-rh.spec.obj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: lm_sensors.init.SuSE.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 2692 bytes
Desc: lm_sensors.init.SuSE.patch
Url : http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/attachments/20031028/5f123240/lm_sensors.init.SuSE.obj

RPM spec file patches for i2c and lm_sensors 2.8.1

[Jean Delvare]

> For people like me, who want to easily deploy lm_sensors across a
> cluster of uniform machines, it's very handy to have a spec file there
> so that we can build our own RPMs for specific systems with specific
> kernels and configurations.  Even though the spec file you had was out
> of date, it still saved me a lot of trouble.  
> 
> My vote would be to keep the spec files.  If nobody wants to maintain
> them, call them unsupported or unmaintained.

OK, why not.

> Who's Axel?  I'd be happy to work with him, or just use whatever he
> has or recommends.

Axel Thimm, the guy behind ATrpms:
http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/
He has RPMs for lm_sensors, I guess you'd be interested in his .spec
files.

> Unified diffs attached.

Thanks, will take a look tomorrow.

-- 
Jean Delvare
http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/

RPM spec file patches for i2c and lm_sensors 2.8.1

[Axel Thimm]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 12:01:11AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > For people like me, who want to easily deploy lm_sensors across a
> > cluster of uniform machines, it's very handy to have a spec file there
> > so that we can build our own RPMs for specific systems with specific
> > kernels and configurations.  Even though the spec file you had was out
> > of date, it still saved me a lot of trouble.  
> > 
> > My vote would be to keep the spec files.  If nobody wants to maintain
> > them, call them unsupported or unmaintained.
> 
> OK, why not.
> 
> > Who's Axel?  I'd be happy to work with him, or just use whatever he
> > has or recommends.
> 
> Axel Thimm, the guy behind ATrpms:
> http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/
> He has RPMs for lm_sensors, I guess you'd be interested in his .spec
> files.

The kernel rpms for Fedora Core 1 (labeled as rawhide in the repo)
already have 2.8.1 support. Userland lm_sensors needs to be updated,
and I wanted to try building the kernel modules there also (otherwise
one may miss a few).

If I make lm_sensors.spec a specfile for kernel modules it will
probably become unreadable. Any help in packaging is appreciated!

BTW does lm_sensors 2.8.1 (userland & kernel modules) require i2c
2.8.1 or is i2c 2.8.0 already adequate? If the latter is true it would
save me from rebuilding the RH7.3-RH9 kernels.
-- 
Axel.Thimm@physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/attachments/20031031/059a4217/attachment.bin

RPM spec file patches for i2c and lm_sensors 2.8.1

[Jean Delvare]

> The kernel rpms for Fedora Core 1 (labeled as rawhide in the repo)
> already have 2.8.1 support. Userland lm_sensors needs to be updated,
> and I wanted to try building the kernel modules there also (otherwise
> one may miss a few).

True.

> If I make lm_sensors.spec a specfile for kernel modules it will
> probably become unreadable. Any help in packaging is appreciated!

Why would it become unreadable? Modules aren't that different from other
files. They are built the same way, installed the same way. I don't
really see the problem (but this is a long time since I last packaged
files in a RPM, so I might be missing something obvious).

Since lm_sensors' modules don't require patching the kernel source tree,
I sure would build them out of it and propose them as a separate
package. That way you got them all (which isn't the case when patching
the kernel tree) and it's less complicated to update the RPM file IMHO.

> BTW does lm_sensors 2.8.1 (userland & kernel modules) require i2c
> 2.8.1 or is i2c 2.8.0 already adequate? If the latter is true it would
> save me from rebuilding the RH7.3-RH9 kernels.

It requires i2c 2.8.1, because a unified delay function has been
introduced to replace the various separate ones that existed in 2.8.0.

-- 
Jean Delvare
http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/