Re: [Boost-install] Linux RPM availability

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-01 09:33:27

Malte,

Malte Starostik wrote:
>>[I cross-post this: jamboost list is concerned with building jam, and
>>boost-install list will be interested to hear that Malte has
>>managed to
>>install boost documentation, which was considered problematic, IIRC,
>>and the regular list might help to decide how to call boost licence]
>
> [leaving out the latter as there is nothing new about this here]
> [snip]
>
>
>>>1) bjam
>>>	I used a modified version of the boost-jam.spec file provided in
>>>	the tarball to build bjam. To get it to work on Mandrake, I had
>>>	to replace the plain
>>>	make
>>>	with
>>>	YACC="bison -y" make
>>>	maybe this should generally be set for Linux as bison is more
>>>	frequently seen than yacc on this platform.
>>
>>Actually, a file called Jambase has a code which selects yacc
>>names. We
>>can make it use "bison -y" on everything called "LINUX", which seems
>>good idea for me.
>
> Great.

Ok, I've used YACC="" per Steve Robbins' suggestion.

>>>	The existing boost-jam.spec states bjam is GPLed. Is this
>>>correct?
>>>	The licence comments in the bjam sources didn't look like GPL to
>>>me.
>>
>>I picked the first thing that RPM accepted. I think I've tried
>>something
>>like "free", but got errors, but I'm not sure.
>
> I see; actually in boost.spec I used "License" instead of "Copyright",
> since vim marked Copyright as an error. - /me is not exactly fluent in
> .spec

/me is neither

> boost-jam.spec including my mods is available at
> http://www.starostik.de/malte/boost-jam.spec

I've also fixed the "bin***" dir problem, again in the same way as Steve
suggested.

[snip]

>>And links rewriting is an interesting
>>thing... I believe it was discussed here some time ago. How do you
>>accompish that?
>
> I've put the spec online at http://www.starostik.de/malte/boost.spec
> It's reall Q&D, but Works For Me (TM).
>
> [snip]
> RPMs built from the above SPEC file are here:
> THESE ARE CONSIDERED ALPHA as far packaging is concerned, and include
> everything that's maybe wrong in the SPEC, just so you can maybe save
> yourself the building process:
> Generic SRPM:
> d1c13d36b971ce2aaad91ece0bf2fe6e
> http://www.starostik.de/malte/boost-1.28.0-1.src.rpm
> i586 RPMs (built on Mandrake 8.2):
> 19534c374e78113766e6b6bf01ab6fbd
> http://www.starostik.de/malte/boost-1.28.0-1.i586.rpm
> ffcd4220fd3274ed4b94701077cdd679
> http://www.starostik.de/malte/boost-python-1.28.0-1.i586.rpm
> 806729ef7b2df79a14357bfa0b06caa3
> http://www.starostik.de/malte/boost-devel-1.28.0-1.i586.rpm
> 71cc05f94cb0a346b336359f29f4ee1f
> http://www.starostik.de/malte/boost-python-devel-1.28.0-1.i586.rpm
> 1d418fe52a5ab68703df7ba38769ffe0
> http://www.starostik.de/malte/boost-doc-1.28.0-1.i586.rpm
> The GPG key used to sign the packages (ID D2F3C787, fingerprint C138
> 2121 FAF3 410A 1C2A 27CD 5431 7745 D2F3 C787)
> is here: http://www.starostik.de/malte/pgp-key

As I've said, I'm not a regular RedHat user, so did not tried them yet. 
However, I think it is great for those who use RedHat. On the other 
hand, this will be really usefull only if somebody will be keeping the 
package up-to-date. Can you try to do that?

- Volodya