[cairo] cairomm rpms for Fedora Core 4

[Murray Cumming]

On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 12:35 -0700, Rick L Vinyard Jr wrote:
[snip]
> I filed a bug-report to get cairomm added to Fedora Extras.

Excellent. Many thanks. Do you have a bug number or URL?

> I'm working from a cvs checkout of cairomm, and here's my current diff.
> I can post it as a bug with an attached file, but since it's short I'll
> post it here and explain... and see if posting it is even necessary or
> desired.
> 
> The cairomm.spec and cairomm.spec.in files are respectively available
> at:
> http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/cairomm.spec
> http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/cairomm.spec.in
> 
> I've found that it's much easier to have the .spec generated by autoconf
> (much like a .pc file)

If you like, but I prefer not to do these build file changes in CVS,
because I prefer not to put .spec files in cvs or tarballs, because 
a) They are never maintained properly, and the source code maintainer
gets the blame for that.
b) It's never clear what distro they or for, or what version of the
distro they are for.

Hopefully you can keep the patch in the source RPM if it's useful.

But Jonathan Jongsma might have a different opinion, and he's at least
51% cairomm maintainer, and rightly so.

>  rather than continually go through the motions to
> update them on release, so when I made then original rpms, I just
> patterned it off a generic template I made awhile back. The nice thing
> about going this route is that when you're ready for a release,
> everything can be prepared in the configure.in.
> 
> I'd create the same for debian, but I'm not familiar enough with the
> structure of a debian package to make one generic like this one is; but
> I'm sure it wouldn't take too much to tweak the structure to generate
> one automatically for debian.

I don't see any need for that. It seems to be under control.

> Anyway, with that said, the following explains the diffs:
> 
> I'm not sure why I needed to modify Makefile.am to include install-sh on
> the EXTRA_DIST line, but rpmbuild couldn't run without it, and it was
> missing from the package. That change at least (or whatever else would
> be a more proper fix) would be needed, whether or not the .spec is
> generated by autoconf from .spec.in.
> 
> The remainder of the changes are only necessary if the autoconf
> generation of the .spec file from .spec.in is desired.
[snip]

-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc at murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com