Re: Are pgrpm changes for JDBC discussed here before submission?

Hi,

pgsql-pkg-yum@ is rpm mailing list.

I have zero idea about maven. How much effort would it take to RPMify it?

Can you please send the new spec? I can give a try tomorrow.

Regards, Devrim

On December 30, 2015 9:16:20 PM GMT+02:00, John Harvey <john(dot)harvey(at)crunchydata(dot)com> wrote:
>Hello Devrim,
>
>I've got a functioning spec-file, but I have a question which I think
>needs
>to be answered before contributing my spec-file changes (which I'm not
>quite sure how to do for pgrpms-- I couldn't find a mail-list).
>
>The question has to do with the new build being dependent on maven
>instead
>of ant.
>Typically, with a spec file it is expected that we could address this
>with
>the following line:
>BuildRequires: maven >= 3.0.0
>
>However, there's a problem. Maven isn't generally packaged as an RPM.
>In
>fact, even the official RHEL docs point to the maven project site for
>installation, and that's via tarball unzipping. I found an abandoned
>java
>project where somebody tried RPM-ing maven, but they abandoned the
>project
>somewhere with maven 2.x, and personally I could not get it to build.
>
>So, I figured I'd try another approach. The other method that I've
>seen
>for setting a dependency is to do something like the following:
>BuildRequires: /usr/bin/mvn
>
>However, even that doesn't work for me. I keep getting that the
>dependency
>isn't found, when it's definitely there on my system. Note that I have
>seen that syntax under a "Requires" line (not BuildRequires) in a
>couple of
>spec files before, but they were in an ifdef block, so they may not
>have
>even been a valid syntax that was tested.
>
>I guess I'm not sure what the right approach here is. If I leave the
>maven
>dependency off, that's not the correct answer, as it's definitely a
>requirement (more specifically, maven 3.x). However, I'm not sure what
>I
>can do to make the spec-file recognize this build dependency.
>
>Note that I'm happy to take this to another list if that's appropriate,
>or
>have an offline discussion if that makes sense.
>
>Thank you,
> -John
>
>
>
>On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Devrim Gündüz <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>
>wrote:
>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> Well, *building* RPMs are PITA nowadays, so until we get a stable
>build, I
>> would prefer this list to catch your attention.
>>
>> Regards, Devrim
>>
>>
>> On December 30, 2015 6:20:40 PM GMT+02:00, Dave Cramer
><pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> We don't have anything to do with the RPMS
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> Dave Cramer
>>>
>>> davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com
>>> www.postgresintl.com
>>>
>>> On 30 December 2015 at 11:03, John Harvey
><john(dot)harvey(at)crunchydata(dot)com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> I have created some changes to the pgrpm repository (git://
>>>> git.postgresql.org/git/pgrpms.git) in order to support the maven
>>>> changes that went into PGJDBC REL9.4.1207. The changes allow for
>the
>>>> proper generation of RPMS for RHEL6 / 7. Before I submit the
>changes to
>>>> pgrpm, I was wondering if those changes are discussed in the
>community
>>>> here, or if they're discussed solely with the team that works on
>the pgrpm
>>>> repository?
>>>>
>>>> I'd be more than happy to share my changes here if it's worth a
>>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> -John
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.