Re: [Caml-list] Re: opam packages wrapped inside a spec file

[Malcolm Matalka <mmatalka@gmail.com>]

Have you looked at fpm (https://github.com/jordansissel/fpm) for
producing RPMs and debs from an arbitrary directory structure?

/M

Florent Monnier <monnier.florent@gmail.com> writes:

> 2013/05/30, Francois Berenger wrote:
>> On 05/30/2013 06:29 AM, Florent Monnier wrote:
> [...]
>>> For fun I've played with wrapping an opam package inside a rpm package.
>>> I just have to tar.gz the package directory and in the .spec file, sed
>>> the archive field for a file:// path (because not allowed to get
>>> something from outside) seded with the archives in the SOURCES
>>> directory of the rpm package. I init Opam and repo remove the internet
>>> one (again nothing from outside), then install in the path that
>>> rpmbuild wants.
>>> There is still one detail that won't be able to be done by a script
>>> it's when there's a C lib dependency, because Opam don't provide yet
>>> any feature for this. But this will probably come for 2.0. So it's
>>> potentially possible to create .rpm's for all Opam packages with
>>> almost no or very few human work. This kind of rpm's won't fit the
>>> Mageia packaging policy though, but we could change it to allow this,
>>> or put an unofficial rpm repo somewhere else.
>>
>> Will this procedure be automated?
>>
>> Automatic creation of RPMs from OPAM packages.
>> I am very interested by this.
>
> Here is the early result of playing with this:
> http://www.linux-nantes.org/%7Efmonnier/ocaml/opam/wrap-rpm/
> you can see it's only the opam package wrapped inside a .spec file.
>
> A more clean solution would of course to make an opam2spec script to
> really create a .spec file that would look very close to a human made
> .spec file. But I think that this second solution would need more
> human work thant the dirty one. This second would maybe even take as
> many time as if it's completely made by hand because there would be
> more details to edit I think.
>
> And the dirty wrap method has also the advantage to stay very close to
> the original one.
>
>> Will this procedure be automated?
>
> This one seems to give an acceptable result.
> (only README LICENSE and api-doc are missing)
> I guess this one could be used as a template by a script for the others.
>
>> Automatic creation of RPMs from OPAM packages.
>> I am very interested by this.
>
> need to add the homepages and licenses fields in opam files if we want
> this script to be able to fill the equivalent fields of the .spec
> files.
> Also the C lib dependency needs to be found to add the BuildRequires fields.
> Otherwise it seems that most of it can be automated.
>
> --