[ITP] Apache 2.0
Mon Jun 20 15:00:00 GMT 2005
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Max Bowsher wrote:
> > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > On Jun 20 01:57, Max Bowsher wrote:
> > > > There doesn't seem to be any particular consensus between Linux
> > > > distros on whether the package should be called "apache2" or
> > > > "httpd".
> > > > I have chosen to follow the naming of the official tarball, and call
> > > > it "httpd". (Red Hat/Fedora does the same, FWIW)
> > >
> > > I like "apache2" better, FWIW.
> > The assumption that package name == tarball stem name is somewhat
> > implied by the generic-build-script system. It wouldn't be impossible to
> > work around, but it would be a bit weird.
> FWIW, adding the original tarball name after the "=" in the line that says
> "export src_orig_pkg_name=" should do it. This will only make the GBS
> unpack that particular tarball, and will do nothing to the name of the
> resulting build directory.
Actually, that's not enough, sorry. You'd also need to redefine "srcdir"
(since otherwise it'll be assumed to be derived from the script name), and
"opt_decomp" (just set it to "j").
> > What should the filenames be?
> > Like this:?
> > apache2-<ver>-<rel>.patch
> > apache2-<ver>-<rel>.sh
> > httpd-<ver>.tar.bz2
> > Or, all httpd, but the package files produced are named apache2?
> > I'll change the name if people really want, but it's not trivial.
> If the above doesn't work right, I'd like to know about it. Thanks.
This still applies, though. :-)
|\ _,,,---,,_ firstname.lastname@example.org
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ email@example.com
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total
Lunar eclipse..." -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT
More information about the Cygwin-apps