Re: [PATCH] generic-build-script

["Max Bowsher" <maxb at ukf dot net>]

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>
> > > If BASEPKG seems better for the upstream package name,
> >
> > What about just ${UPSTREAM_PACKAGE_NAME}?
>
> You know, the thought did cross my mind.  But the above is just unwieldy
> enough to remove it from consideration.
>
> OTOH, it would be nice if all of the configuration variables in the GBS
> (i.e., those that may be changed by the maintainers) were collected in one
> place, with comments like the one Harold suggested (and Max added).

Problem is, it's not just variables.
Any moderately complex package can require all sorts of tweaks.

It's perhaps worth mentioning that I don't maintain any per-package customizations to the g-b-s directly, but instead have written 
myself a Python script which modifies the basic g-b-s according to a per-package rules file.

For example, here are my rules for neon:

ConfigureArg --enable-shared
ConfigureArg --disable-static
ConfigureArg --with-ssl
SubPackage libneon24-$VER-$REL.tar.bz2 usr/bin/cygneon-24.dll

The script is attached.


Max.

Attachment: gbsmunge.py
Description: Binary data