Hide Forgot
Description of problem: I saw you sent rrdtool spec file of Fedora Extras upstream - fine! But in cases like this I would like to see the subpackages/rrd bindings conditional, because not everybody likes PHP or Python binding always when building rrdtool RPM from upstream spec file. As I'm rebuilding the Extras rrdtool package always for different reasons, I just conditionalized the packages and added the missing tcl subpackage/binding. Maybe you can apply the patch to the next build. Everything should behave like in the past, but there's the new rrdtool-tcl subpackage now. If you don't like it for Fedora Extras, just change the line %{!?with_tcl:%define with_tcl 1} to %{!?with_tcl:%define with_tcl 0} for getting the old behavior. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): rrdtool-1.2.15-3 Actual results: Missing rrdtool-tcl subpackage/binding, non-conditional bindings. Expected results: Apply of my attached patch or better ;-) Additional info: I didn't conditionalize the perl binding/subpackage, because perl is a build requirement, so it doesn't make really sense in my eyes.
Created attachment 134525 [details] Diff of rrdtool spec files
Jarod, ping?
Hey...somebody alive?
Sorry, been insanely busy with other stuff the past few weeks, then was on vacation. This is on my todo list...
Just pushed new builds with the tcl sub-package, but holding off on the conditionalization for the moment.
Why - any special reason?
I may want to do the conditional bit a little differently, but didn't have the time to really look into it today.
Okay, just checked a spec into the devel branch that conditionalizes the building of python, php and tcl bits. Same idea as the attached patch, but implemented slightly different. Use '--without <component>' to disable bits. Once built for devel, I'll also check the changes in for FC5 and 6.