[XForms] rpms are not quite right

[Angus Leeming]

On Thursday 06 May 2004 3:18 pm, Angus Leeming wrote:
> On Thursday 06 May 2004 3:13 pm, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > It may be that you have to do that yourself in a postinstall phase.
> > You may want to look at the rpm spec file of another existing library.
>
> Thanks ;-)

Ok, Jean-Marc. The attached patch *almost* does the right thing.

# rpm -Uvh --prefix /home/angus/test /home/angus/rpm/RPMS/i386/xforms-1.0.90-1.i386.rpm
Preparing...                ########################################### [100%]
   1:xforms                 ########################################### [100%]
Executing post installation
ln -sf /home/angus/test/lib/libforms.so.1.0.90 /home/angus/test/lib/libforms.so
ln -sf /home/angus/test/lib/libforms.so.1.0.90 /home/angus/test/lib/libforms.so.1
ln -sf /home/angus/test/lib/libformsGL.so.1.0.90 /home/angus/test/lib/libformsGL.so
ln -sf /home/angus/test/lib/libformsGL.so.1.0.90 /home/angus/test/lib/libformsGL.so.1
ln -sf /home/angus/test/lib/libflimage.so.1.0.90 /home/angus/test/lib/libflimage.so
ln -sf /home/angus/test/lib/libflimage.so.1.0.90 /home/angus/test/lib/libflimage.so.1

# rpm -e xforms
Executing post uninstallation
rm -f /home/angus/test/lib/libforms.so /home/angus/test/lib/libforms.so.1
rm -f /home/angus/test/lib/libformsGL.so /home/angus/test/lib/libformsGL.so.1
rm -f /home/angus/test/lib/libflimage.so /home/angus/test/lib/libflimage.so.1


Note, however, that we should be linking against 1.0.0 files not 1.0.90 ones.
I remember our discussions some time ago about the meaning of these version
numbers in the .so files and why they should be different to those of the
package version. 

The .so version numbers are defined in lib/Makefile.am. However, it looks to me as 
if we need a new variable in configure.ac, say SO_VERSION, which will be
substituted at compile time for '1:0:0'. lib/Makefile.am would contain the line:

libforms_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info @SO_VERSION@

and xforms.spec.in would contain the line

SO_VERSION=@SO_VERSION@

Thereafter, it's just a case of straightforward manipulation.

Thoughts?
Angus
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: xforms.spec.in.diff
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 1796 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : attachments/20040506/f517b2e1/attachment-0010.bin