[ATrpms-users] Re: unable to compile srpms

[Axel Thimm]

On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 08:08:24PM -0800, Fedor Pikus wrote:
> If I had the macros, that problem would be solved.
> 
> I really don't see why you are so opposed to releasing them.

But you already posted the macros yourself yesterday on the list (?)!
These are the macros, there is nothing more to it. The rest is having
the kernel source tree layed out, configured and prepared/deped in
advance. This is where the real work is, and what is not covered by
macros.

Just use the macros you posted yourself into /etc/rpm/macros or
elsewhere, and see the src.rpms not moaning anymore about macros but
about missing linux/version.h, linux/autonconf.h, wrong
configs/*.config files (since RH modigfied them before saving them
into the kernel-source(code)) and so on.

> You keep saying that without the infrastructure they are not as
> useful as they could be, and lack of cooperation on the part of
> Fedora maintainers and others does not allow for a seamless
> solution. I agree that it would be nice, but for whatever reason
> it's not happening, and you alone cannot make it happen. Fine, you
> can't give me the solution you'd like, but you can make it a little
> easier for me to rebuild source RPMs on my own system, if you just
> posted the macros. What would be the problem with that? It takes
> probably 1 minute of your time (to post them in a flat file on WWW,
> not package them as you'd really like as a solution for Joe User),
> it makes life easier for users like me.

Packaging the macros isn't also a problem, the missing parts really
is. As written above, you do have the macros already, and they are
part of this thread.

> Love to. Can't: I have no idea whether the macros I scarfed around and
> reverse-engineered look anything like yours, so even if I improved
> them I have no way of knowing that I did.

They are the same, these are the macros I had shared with some
atrpms-devel folks to see whether we can find a nice scheme for end
user rebuilds. The result is that a lot of engineering is still
needed.

But seeing two knowledgable users putting enrgy into this, perhaps we
do have enough manpower to attack this? Are you willing to go for it?

> So, is there an exam for power user status with the macros as the
> prize for passing? :)

Yes, you have the macros, plug them in and build your custom kernel
module. It goes like this

rpmbuild --define '_kernel 2.6.9-1.678_FC3' \
         --define 'kmdl_kernelsrcdir /where/the/sources/have/been/layed/out' \
         foo.src.rpm

If you drop the arguments ot will try to build against the running
kernel and use whatever is layed out beneath /lib/modules/*/build (for
some cases this may work under FC3, but not for side-including
modules, which are most of them, see ipw2100 discussion).
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-users/attachments/20041121/3fdc7093/attachment.bin