[packman] Package update workflow?

[Cristian Morales Vega]

On 4 May 2012 18:52, Cristian Morales Vega <reddwarf at opensuse.org> wrote:
> On 4 May 2012 16:48, Pascal Bleser <pascal.bleser at opensuse.org> wrote:
>>  discussing it on the list first: there are many issues with
>>  the way the maintainers of multimedia:libs and multimedia:apps
>>  on build.o.o handle their packages, I've mentioned that in the
>>  past (they don't care about older distros, replace foo-devel
>>  with pkgconfig(foo) which doesn't work on SLE or Evergreen,
>>  they carelessly rename packages which breaks a lot of other
>>  things (e.g. taglib -> libtag), etc..., and generally speaking
>>  they don't see their packages are linked in Packman, hence
>>  they don't see the side effects of changes to their packages,
>>  and that doesn't work too well)
>
> I could try to create the packages
> - rpm-Evergreen_11.1
> - rpm-Evergreen_11.2
> - rpm-SLE-11
> - rpm-SLE-11-SP2
>
> branching from its original packages but adding
> - a default definition of build root
> - a definition of the make_install macro
>
> (With some luck it would be just a matter of putting the definitions
> in /usr/lib/rpm/macros)
>
>
> Then, when someone finds a problem with a pkgconfig() buildrequire,
> please don't patch it but add a Substitute entry in the Essentials
> prjconf.
>
>
> I think we could have the packages from
> multimedia:libs/multimedia:apps with these things building without
> problems quite easily.
>
> To say the truth I first thought about this months ago. But I never
> tried only because it could easily happen that something breaks in the
> first tries... Just another case of "in order to not step on anyone's
> toes... we don't do the work".

mjpegtools with pkgconfig() BuildRequires, %make_install and no
BuildRoot tag is building in home:RedDwarf for Evergreen 11.1 and
11.2. If someone can say me where to get the SRPMs for SLE the same
thing could be done for them.

The %make_install is a no-brainer. But the buildroot part required a
little patch to the code.
Again, something could broke... Anybody against putting these patched
RPMs in Essentials?