📄 0260-0262.html
字号:
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Maximum RPM (RPM):Creating Subpackages:EarthWeb Inc.-</TITLE>
<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW">
<SCRIPT>
<!--
function displayWindow(url, width, height) {
var Win = window.open(url,"displayWindow",'width=' + width +
',height=' + height + ',resizable=1,scrollbars=yes');
}
//-->
</SCRIPT>
</HEAD>
-->
<!-- ISBN=0672311054 //-->
<!-- TITLE=Maximum RPM (RPM)//-->
<!-- AUTHOR=Edward Bailey//-->
<!-- PUBLISHER=Macmillan Computer Publishing//-->
<!-- IMPRINT=Sams//-->
<!-- CHAPTER=18 //-->
<!-- PAGES=0247-0262 //-->
<!-- UNASSIGNED1 //-->
<!-- UNASSIGNED2 //-->
<P><CENTER>
<a href="0255-0259.html">Previous</A> | <a href="../ewtoc.html">Table of Contents</A> | <a href="../ch19/0263-0266.html">Next</A>
</CENTER></P>
<A NAME="PAGENUM-260"><P>Page 260</P></A>
<P>Starting at the top, we start the build with the usual command. Immediately following
the command, RPM indicates that four packages are to be built from this spec file. The
%prep, %build, and %install scripts then execute as usual.
</P>
<P>Next, RPM executes its special doc internal script, even though we haven't declared any
files to be documentation. It's worth noting, however, that the
DOCDIR environment variables show that if the spec file
had declared some of the files as documentation, RPM would have
created the appropriate documentation directories for each of the packages.
</P>
<P>At this point, RPM creates the binary packages. As you can see, each package contains the
file defined in its %files list.
</P>
<P>Finally, the source package file is created. It contains the spec file and the original sources,
just like any other source package.
</P>
<P>One spec file. One set of sources. One build command. Four packages (five, if you count
the source package). All in all, a pretty good deal, isn't it?
</P>
<H4><A NAME="ch18_ 22">
18.6.1. Giving Subpackages the Once-Over
</A></H4>
<P>Let's take a look at our newly created packages.
As with any other package, each subpackage should be tested by being installed on a system that has not had that software installed
before. In this section, we'll point out how subpackages differ from their nonsubpackaged
counterparts.
</P>
<P>First, let's just look at each package's information:
</P>
<!-- CODE //-->
<PRE>
# rpm -qip foo-2.7-1.i386.rpm
Name : foo Distribution: (none)
Version : 2.7 Vendor: (none)
Release : 1 Build Date: Wed Nov 06 13:33:37 1996
Install date: (none) Build Host: foonly.rpm.org
Group : bogus/junque Source RPM: foo-2.7-1.src.rpm
Size : 35
Summary : The foo app, and the baz library needed to build it
Description :
This is the long description of the foo app, and the baz library needed to
build it...
# rpm -qip foo-server-2.7-1.i386.rpm
Name : foo-server Distribution: (none)
Version : 2.7 Vendor: (none)
Release : 1 Build Date: Wed Nov 06 13:33:37 1996
Install date: (none) Build Host: foonly.rpm.org
Group : bogus/junque Source RPM: foo-2.7-1.src.rpm
Size : 42
Summary : The foo server
Description :
This is the long description for the foo server...
</PRE>
<!-- END CODE //-->
<A NAME="PAGENUM-261"><P>Page 261</P></A>
<!-- CODE //-->
<PRE>
# rpm -qip foo-client-2.7-1.i386.rpm
Name : foo-client Distribution: (none)
Version : 2.7 Vendor: (none)
Release : 1 Build Date: Wed Nov 06 13:33:37 1996
Install date: (none) Build Host: foonly.rpm.org
Group : bogus/junque Source RPM: foo-2.7-1.src.rpm
Size : 42
Summary : The foo client
Description :
This is the long description for the foo client...
# rpm -qip bazlib-5.6-1.i386.rpm
Name : bazlib Distribution: (none)
Version : 5.6 Vendor: (none)
Release : 1 Build Date: Wed Nov 06 13:33:37 1996
Install date: (none) Build Host: foonly.rpm.org
Group : bogus/junque Source RPM: foo-2.7-1.src.rpm
Size : 38
Summary : The baz library
Description :
This is the long description for the bazlib...
#
</PRE>
<!-- END CODE //-->
<P>Here we've used RPM's query capability to display a list of summary information for
each package. A few points are worth noting.
</P>
<P>First, each package lists foo-2.7-1.src.rpm as its source package file. This is the only way
to tell if two package files were created from the same set of sources. Trying to use a
package's name as an indicator is futile, as the
bazlib package shows us.
</P>
<P>The next thing to notice is that the summaries and
descriptions for each package are specific to that package. Since these tags were placed and named according to each package, this
should be no surprise.
</P>
<P>Finally, we can see that each package's version has been either inherited from the main
package's preamble or, as in the case of the
bazlib package, the main package's version has been
overridden by a version tag added to bazlib's preamble.
</P>
<P>If we look at the source package's information, we see that its information has been taken
entirely from the main package's set of tags:
</P>
<!-- CODE //-->
<PRE>
# rpm -qip foo-2.7-1.src.rpm
Name : foo Distribution: (none)
Version : 2.7 Vendor: (none)
Release : 1 Build Date: Wed Nov 06 13:33:37 1996
Install date: (none) Build Host: foonly.rpm.org
Group : bogus/junque Source RPM: (none)
Size : 1415
Summary : The foo app, and the baz library needed to build it
Description :
This is the long description of the foo app, and the baz library needed to
build it...
#
</PRE>
<!-- END CODE //-->
<A NAME="PAGENUM-262"><P>Page 262</P></A>
<P>It's easy to see that if there were no %files list for the main package, and therefore, no
main package, the tags in the main preamble would still be used in the source package. This is
why RPM enforces the requirement that the main preamble contain
copyright, %description, and group tags. So, here's a word to the wise: Don't put something stupid in the main
preamble's %description just to satisfy RPM. Your witty saying will be immortalized for all time in
every source package you distribute. (Yes, the author found out about this the hard way!)
</P>
<H4><A NAME="ch18_ 23">
18.6.1.1. Verifying Subpackage-Specific Install and Erase Scripts
</A></H4>
<P>The easiest way to verify that the %pre scripts we defined for each package were actually used
is to simply install each package:
</P>
<!-- CODE //-->
<PRE>
# rpm -Uvh foo-2.7-1.i386.rpm
foo This is the foo package preinstall script
##################################################
# rpm -Uvh foo-server-2.7-1.i386.rpm
foo-server This is the foo-server subpackage preinstall script
##################################################
# rpm -Uvh foo-client-2.7-1.i386.rpm
foo-client This is the foo-client subpackage preinstall script
##################################################
# rpm -Uvh bazlib-5.6-1.i386.rpm
bazlib This is the bazlib subpackage preinstall script
##################################################
#
</PRE>
<!-- END CODE //-->
<P>As expected, the unique %pre script for each package has been included. Of course, if we
hadn't wanted to actually install the packages, we could have used RPM's
--scripts option to display the scripts:
</P>
<!-- CODE //-->
<PRE>
# rpm -qp --scripts foo-2.7-1.i386.rpm
preinstall script:
echo "This is the foo-server subpackage preinstall script"
postinstall script:
(none)
preuninstall script:
(none)
postuninstall script:
(none)
verify script:
(none)
#
</PRE>
<!-- END CODE //-->
<P>This approach might be a bit safer, particularly if installing the newly built package would
disrupt operations on your build system.
</P>
<P><CENTER>
<a href="0255-0259.html">Previous</A> | <a href="../ewtoc.html">Table of Contents</A> | <a href="../ch19/0263-0266.html">Next</A>
</CENTER></P>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<!-- begin footer information -->
</body></html>⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码
Ctrl + C
搜索代码
Ctrl + F
全屏模式
F11
切换主题
Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键
?
增大字号
Ctrl + =
减小字号
Ctrl + -