(mds)

   Subject:
         RE: RPM spec file patches for i2c and lm_sensors 2.8.1
   Date:
         Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:34:11 -0800
   From:
         "Marc Rieffel" <marc@paracel.com>
     To:
         <sensors@Stimpy.netroedge.com>




I agree that you shouldn't distribute RPMs.  That doesn't make sense for kernel modules.

For people like me, who want to easily deploy lm_sensors across a cluster of uniform machines, it's very handy to have a spec
file there so that we can build our own RPMs for specific systems with specific kernels and configurations.  Even though the
spec file you had was out of date, it still saved me a lot of trouble.

My vote would be to keep the spec files.  If nobody wants to maintain them, call them unsupported or unmaintained.

Who's Axel?  I'd be happy to work with him, or just use whatever he has or recommends.

Unified diffs attached.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean Delvare [mailto:khali@linux-fr.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 2:16 PM
> To: Marc Rieffel; Axel Thimm
> Cc: sensors@Stimpy.netroedge.com
> Subject: Re: RPM spec file patches for i2c and lm_sensors 2.8.1
>
>
>
> > I had to make these changes to be able to build i2c and lm_sensors
> > rpms that worked.  Also, lm_sensors.init isn't included in
> any of the
> > rpms.  Looks like nobody's touched these for several versions.
>
> You're right, the files were untouched since May 2000. Quite a while
> actually. We don't build RPMs anymore. I personnaly consider that this
> is the distributor's job, not our. They do that much better than we
> would.
>
> > i2c.spec:
> >
> > 25c27
> > < %define ver 2.8.1
> > ---
> > > %define ver 2.5.0
> > (...)
>
> Please provide unified diffs if you want me to apply them to
> our files.
>
> You could also consider getting in touch with Axel, who is building
> quality RPM packages from our sources, using his own .spec
> files. Maybe
> you both will agree on some version of the spec files that we should
> include in our source files. Or maybe we should simply remove the RPM
> directory from our source trees - that would be more honest
> IMHO, since
> nobody here seems to be wanting to maintain them, while Axel
> is doing a
> very great job on his side. Let packagers package, that's their job :)
>
> --
> Jean Delvare
> http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/
>


git-svn-id: http://lm-sensors.org/svn/lm-sensors/trunk@2169 7894878c-1315-0410-8ee3-d5d059ff63e0

1 files changed, 11 insertions, 6 deletions

diff --git a/RPM/lm_sensors.spec b/RPM/lm_sensors.spec
index ab6df4dd..490eec5a 100644
--- a/RPM/lm_sensors.spec
+++ b/RPM/lm_sensors.spec
@@ -30,12 +30,11 @@
 %define I2C_HEADERS %{prefix}/include
 
 #Define your kernel version here.
-%define kversion 2.2.14
+%define kversion %(uname -r)
 %define mversion %{kversion}
-#Another example for the above: %define kversion 2.2.14-SMP
 
 %define name lm_sensors
-%define ver 2.5.0
+%define ver 2.8.3
 Summary: Hardware Health Monitoring Tools
 Name: %{name}
 Version: %{ver}
@@ -118,6 +117,8 @@ make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT PREFIX=%{prefix}
 cp -a $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/sensors.conf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/sensors.ex
 
 %post
+#Add %{prefix}/lib to the ldconfig.
+grep "{%prefix}/lib" /etc/ld.so.conf || echo "%{prefix}/lib" >> /etc/ld.so.conf
 ldconfig || /bin/true
 echo "please run \`%{prefix}/sbin/sensors-detect' to configure the sensors."
 
@@ -146,10 +147,14 @@ depmod -a || /bin/true
 
 %files drivers
 %dir /lib/modules/%{mversion}
-%dir /lib/modules/%{mversion}/misc
-/lib/modules/%{mversion}/misc/*
+%dir /lib/modules/%{mversion}/kernel/drivers/i2c/
+/lib/modules/%{mversion}/kernel/drivers/i2c/*
+%dir /lib/modules/%{mversion}/kernel/drivers/i2c/busses
+/lib/modules/%{mversion}/kernel/drivers/i2c/busses/*
+%dir /lib/modules/%{mversion}/kernel/drivers/i2c/chips
+/lib/modules/%{mversion}/kernel/drivers/i2c/chips/*
 %dir %{prefix}/include/linux
-%{prefix}/include/linux/*.h
+%{prefix}/include/linux/sensors.h
 %doc doc/busses doc/chips doc/developers doc/kernel
 
 %files devel