Xpra: Ticket #606: cleaned up xpra.spec

Cleaned up the xpra.spec. The build dependencies depend on packages in #605.

Removed the generic option. If there is a need we can break the package out into components such as (client, server, codecs, opengl, etc...)

Removed bunch of old crufty options.

Tue, 17 Jun 2014 02:04:32 GMT - pyther: attachment set

Sat, 12 Jul 2014 09:58:51 GMT - Antoine Martin: owner changed

I like (and will try to merge):

but there are too many changes in this specfile for me to apply wholesale:

Tue, 15 Jul 2014 01:14:47 GMT - pyther:

Responding to your questions/points

(1) http://danwalsh.livejournal.com/2006/05/11/ (see execmod) (2) http://danwalsh.livejournal.com/13716.html

Sun, 20 Jul 2014 13:58:47 GMT - Antoine Martin: owner, status changed

Sun, 03 Aug 2014 11:03:44 GMT - Antoine Martin: owner, status changed

Some changes already applied: r7101 + r7103

Anything more than those and I quickly ran into problems building on at least one platform. Please re-submit incremental changes (similar to the two commits above) instead of wholesale changes.

Some questions / remarks:

PS: found a good reference on which macros are available in which versions here: zarb.org : macros

Mon, 04 Aug 2014 01:29:06 GMT - pyther:

Mon, 04 Aug 2014 03:53:51 GMT - Antoine Martin:

regarding %post and %postun: Do you plan to still support el5?

Yes, 0.14.x will be the last branch to support EL5, and it will be a LTS release. As soon as development opens for 0.15.x, I will drop support for EL5, python24 and python25, old versions of pygtk, etc. At last! (I wished I could drop python26 too..)

regards to Xdummy it is supported on EL6/EL7. Do you want to continue to support EL5?

As per above, yes. Note: although Xdummy works on EL6.3 and later, it doesn't on 6.2 and earlier. (IIRC, I could be off by one on the version numbers) And I have to provide rpms for 6.2.

I want to say I tested this spec on EL5/EL6/Fedora 19/Fedora 20...

OK, I was only asking because normally special cases don't end up in the code (specfile in this case) unless I've hit some problems. Applied in r7108.

regarding the absolute path: this is what fedora recommends...

OK, also merged in r7107.

Does this also apply to commands like rm and cd? How do we make the distinction?

Note to self: if all goes well, we can probably drop the static modules and also get rid of all the selinux stuff.

Thu, 14 Aug 2014 15:27:19 GMT - Antoine Martin:

Lots of cleanups in r7283.

Sun, 17 Aug 2014 01:03:13 GMT - pyther:

Does this also apply to commands like rm and cd? How do we make the distinction?

I've seen both the full path specified and just the command specified. I think, in general, the best practice would be to use use the absolute path. You won't have to worry about functions, aliases, or paths that way.

Sun, 17 Aug 2014 02:03:18 GMT - pyther:

One Major Issue: BuildRequires: setuptool should be BuildRequires: python-setuptools

Xpra should be installed in python_sitearch in the case of x86_64 that would be /usr/lib64

$ find /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/  | grep '\.so' | wc -l
$ find /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/  | grep '\.so' | wc -l

See this mark on the difference between sitelib and sitearch:

You got it right. If you don't have any platform-specific code, use %{python_sitelib} exclusively. If you do, like C-binding stuff, then all

these should go to %{python_sitearch}, since the location will be different on 64-bit architectures.


Sun, 17 Aug 2014 02:04:20 GMT - pyther: attachment set

xpra.spec patch based on r7292

Sun, 17 Aug 2014 02:48:53 GMT - Antoine Martin:

I hope the latter does not cause problems somewhere.. (centos5?)

Sun, 17 Aug 2014 14:15:42 GMT - Antoine Martin: status, milestone changed; resolution set

0.14.0 has been shipped with all these changes, closing at last!

Sat, 23 Jan 2021 05:00:41 GMT - migration script:

this ticket has been moved to: https://github.com/Xpra-org/xpra/issues/606