Quick Note = rpmerizor & retro dev files
Posted 01-25-2012 at 03:31 AM by rainbowsally
I noticed that rpmerizor doesn't include so symlinks in the package. (You have to add them to the spec as "%dir" types if you need them.)
As a result the current rpmerizor is pretty SAFE for retro development packages because it can't overwrite the default libs (*.so with no numeric extension).
However, I've asked eric to consider adding a switch so that we can include the symlinks as per "normal" development packages which usually only contain the *.so symlinks, header files, and perhaps a pkgconfig entry in the lib folder and some docs.
Again, retro development files can munch your system whereas the executables are much less likely to mess you up.
Consider relocating the retro dev files if you actually do need them for some reason.
[See "make-based ...", first in the series in this blog.
We've got an upgrade in the pipes but it's not ready to post yet.]
As a result the current rpmerizor is pretty SAFE for retro development packages because it can't overwrite the default libs (*.so with no numeric extension).
However, I've asked eric to consider adding a switch so that we can include the symlinks as per "normal" development packages which usually only contain the *.so symlinks, header files, and perhaps a pkgconfig entry in the lib folder and some docs.
Again, retro development files can munch your system whereas the executables are much less likely to mess you up.
Consider relocating the retro dev files if you actually do need them for some reason.
[See "make-based ...", first in the series in this blog.
We've got an upgrade in the pipes but it's not ready to post yet.]
Total Comments 0
