Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 442328
Remote database should be more easily findable
Last modified: 2008-06-30 06:31:16 EDT
Currently, the remotes database lives in /usr/share/doc/lirc-doc-%{lirc_version}/remotes gnome-lirc-properties would need to hardcode the version number in the spec file to be able to find it. It would be better if the remotes database was: - in the main package - in an unchanging location (/usr/share/lirc/remotes would be a good one)
Once upon a time, my lirc package included in addition to the remote configs shipped in lirc tarballs everything from http://www.lirc.org/remotes/ which adds quite a bit to the package payload which is not very welcome in trimmed down setups. That data is usually only needed in the configuration phase and not in "production runtime". Shipping them somewhere else than the main package is a relic of that. Now, if only the remote configs in the main lirc package are shipped, we're talking only about 750kB of installed data which isn't a huge deal in just about any setup, but I'd rather keep them in a separate package nevertheless. So I'd be fine with let's say a lirc-remotes subpackage, using /usr/share/lirc/remotes. Or perhaps even a completely separate source rpm from which the remotes package is built from, that way it'd be independent of main lirc package updates, could be noarch, and if someone wants to bundle everything from http://www.lirc.org/remotes/ in it again, it wouldn't bloat even the lirc source package. Thoughts?
An lirc-remotes package with a better path would be just great for me. I don't think that a separate source rpm would be warranted, unless we wanted to pull a lot more data from upstream.
Created attachment 305132 [details] lirc-separate-remotes.patch Patch to separate the remotes definitions (might not apply cleanly, as I've already modified the .spec for the patches in bug 442248).
For the time being, yeah, I think just a separate sub-package with the existing remote defs is enough. I've gone ahead and done something similar to the patch provided in comment #3.
*** Bug 451441 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Works fine for me, closing.