[osgeo4w-dev] Source packages - Trying to do things right...

[Julien Malik]

Hi Jurgen,

Thanks for the reply.


On 03/07/2014 06:14 PM, Jürgen E. Fischer wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> On Fri, 07. Mar 2014 at 14:45:53 +0100, Julien Malik wrote:
>> For some new packages I am pushing to OSGeo4W '64bit Edition', I'm
>> trying to do things right and provide src packages with recipes.
>>
>> I have a few questions :
>> - I see that license files are provided as packagename-version.txt in a
>>   number of packages, including free software. I did the same, but when
>>   installing the package I get a warning by the installer about "proprietary
>>   license agreement".  The package I'm installing is free software. What
>>   shall I do to make the installer not issue the warning ?
> New free licenses should be added to acceptable.lst or mappings to already
> existing license, that are essentially the same, but just shipped with
> different formatting.  Everything not listed is considered proprietary.

OK found it under /osgeo/download/osgeo4w.
>  
>> - There are manifest files in some packages, not all. Should I upload them (I
>>   managed to generate it during recipe build), or does the osgeo server do the
>>   job for me ?
> You can, but nothing on the server side uses them.   I have a local script that
> creates them and checks for duplicate files in different packages and also for
> unpackaged files in a installed tree.
Ok so I'll generate them as part of the source package recipe.
>     The idea was to eventually integrated
> that into the cgis, but I didn't do it yet.
cgis, what's this ?

>
>
>> - I don't understand how the zlib recipe works. I fails on my system due
>>   to tar not accepting output file with backslahes in path.
>>   I think I only have tar from the msys OSGeo4W package. Which one do you
>>   use for zlib ?
> I used cygwin's tar.

Ah.. OK. Too bad the tool is not provided by OSGeo4W itself.
Is there a chance this can be fixed ?

>
>
>> - If there is one recipe you consider should be the model, for what package
>>   is it ?
> Not really.  My recipes evolved from package to package.  They probably should
> include or download the actual source, be ready for automated building,
> automatically install build dependencies (apt?) and stuff like that.

Cannot agree more.
Also, I was thinking it might be desirable to package some missing build
tools directly into OSGeo4W.
We have swig or sip but don't even have cmake.

It seems to me we are really close to have an OSGeo4W build machine be
"basic standard windows + OSGeo4W + vc10".
That would be great to turn this into a reality.

>   Ideally
> it should handle both architectures too.
Great idea too. Do you have an advice on that ?
I currently think the "package.cmd" bat file shall be run from an
OSGeo4W shell and recognize the architecture flavor.
Is there any env var/tool in OSGeo4W shell telling the architecture ?

>   So for now they just have the
> character of elaborate build notes.
>
> Also most if not all source packages are not correct for use with the
> installer, because they just contain files that are meant to go into a manually
> extracted source tree somewhere, while the installer would install them into
> the osgeo4w tree where they would clash, because they would all use the same
> directory 'osgeo4w'.  I think the sources should live in /usr/src/$package/,
> but missed to check cygwin packages earlier and didn't want to rebuild
> everything just to fix the source packages.
That's what I did : source package extracts to /usr/src/osgeo4w/$package
and generates build result in /usr/src/release/$package.
Easier for me then to script things to manage synchronisation from
/usr/src/release to the osgeo server.

>
>
>> - Can you review the "glew" source package ?
> Um, the archive contains backslashes in the path - that's IMHO undesireable.
OK so I guess I should go for cygwin's tar.
However it does not seem to create issues for extracting the tarballs,
even under linux shells.

> But appart from that from a quick glace they look fine, it even already does
> the download and extraction of the sources and the archive doesn't have that
> clashing directory.
Thanks for taking the time to review it.

Julien