Bug 965655 - RFE (Singular): include shareable factory-gftables content
RFE (Singular): include shareable factory-gftables content
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Singular (Show other bugs)
Unspecified Unspecified
unspecified Severity unspecified
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Rex Dieter
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
: FutureFeature
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2013-05-21 09:26 EDT by Rex Dieter
Modified: 2013-08-01 14:13 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2013-08-01 14:13:17 EDT
Type: Bug
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)
.spec patch to implement factory-gftables.noarch subpkg (2.70 KB, patch)
2013-05-21 16:41 EDT, Rex Dieter
no flags Details | Diff

  None (edit)
Description Rex Dieter 2013-05-21 09:26:26 EDT
Been meaning to work on packaging factory-gftables for awhile, but kept putting it off.  :)

Macaulay2 (and other factory consumers I'd imagine) would be happier if factory-gftables were available.

They're pregenerated @

I'd venture we'd want to make a factory-gftables.noarch subpkg

Alternatively, and possibly better now that I think about it, would you prefer that I simply package factory-gftables content separately from Singular?  (it *is* static content, not sure how often we'd ever want to rebuild it...)
Comment 1 Paulo Andrade 2013-05-21 11:07:15 EDT
I am fine with it being split from Singular.
Directory location should be easy to correct with a
symlink, but not sure about actual file names, so, feel
free to do it the way Macaulay2 expects.
Comment 2 Rex Dieter 2013-05-21 14:23:54 EDT
can you elaborate, its not clear to me what you'd prefer:

1.  build factory-gftables subpkg from Singuar.spec

2.  build factory-gftables separate from Singular

Comment 3 Rex Dieter 2013-05-21 14:28:25 EDT
OK, wierd, Singular seems to have it's own copies (generated at build time?) and in a slightly different layout:


taking a closer look
Comment 4 Rex Dieter 2013-05-21 15:21:35 EDT
OK, it's... a little silly, but,

factory seems to expect these in the form:

and Singular (includes them already in its tarball) in the form:

where z = x^y

So, it should be theoretically possible to share this data programmatically.  I'll have to think a bit on how best to do it.
Comment 5 Rex Dieter 2013-05-21 16:41:51 EDT
Created attachment 751371 [details]
.spec patch to implement factory-gftables.noarch subpkg

First try, how's this look to you?
Comment 6 Paulo Andrade 2013-05-21 19:36:37 EDT
You probably need to test it a bit, because
there is code like this factory/gfops.cc:

    if (gftable_dir)
#ifndef SINGULAR
      sprintf( buffer, GFTABLEDIR "/gftable.%d.%d", p, n );
      gffilename = buffer;
      inputfile = fopen( buffer, "r" );
      sprintf( buffer, "gftables/%d", q );
      gffilename = buffer;
      inputfile = feFopen( buffer, "r" );

GFTABLEDIR can be redefined (again need to check).
But as I understand it, you will just pass some
path matching "GFTABLEDIR" under /usr/share.

The proper approach should be to tell Singular and
libfac to also use it.

Well, I believe your patch should be good enough,
but I did not actually fool proof test it :-)
Comment 7 Rex Dieter 2013-05-22 14:43:19 EDT
config.h:#define GFTABLEDIR "/usr/share/factory/gftables"

OK, I'll commit, and see how things go.
Comment 8 Rex Dieter 2013-08-01 14:13:17 EDT
* Tue May 21 2013 Rex Dieter <rdieter@fedoraproject.org> - 3.1.5-6
- factory-gftables.noarch subpkg (#965655)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.