WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: [SOLVED] aspell rebuild tcz questions  (Read 4646 times)

aus9

  • Guest
[SOLVED] aspell rebuild tcz questions
« on: November 13, 2012, 02:07:55 PM »
I am hoping Juanito or gutmensch might care to answer if possible

to bump weechat maintained by blofsy I am going to bump aspell.

aspell and its dictionary are already built but in building them, I have stripped out the INCLUDE dir and the
.la and .so shared files. The current tcz has them in the main package.

question Do you want me to leave them in my submission?
question Do you want me to split them from main package?

Having received advice on the libportaudio issue, I am reluctant to build new packages but also don't want to submit bloated packages if not needed.

-----------------build script fragment is currently
# strip some files from main package
rm -r -f aspell/usr/local/include
rm -r -f aspell/usr/local/share/info
rm -r -f aspell/usr/local/share/doc
rm -r -f aspell/usr/local/share/man

rm -r -f aspell/usr/local/lib/*.la
rm -r -f aspell/usr/local/lib/*.so*
rm -r -f aspell/usr/local/lib/aspell-0.60/*.la
rm -r -f aspell/usr/local/lib/aspell-0.60/*.so

build script removed as I need to submit the aspell stuff before the dictionary upgrade

cheers

gordon

EDIT

build script is now out-of-date and won't be used.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2012, 03:36:01 PM by aus9 »

Offline althalus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
Re: aspell rebuild tcz questions
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2012, 05:08:18 PM »
Quote
rm -r -f aspell/usr/local/include
Should probably go into an aspell-dev.tcz, so that other packages can be built against aspell

Quote
rm -r -f aspell/usr/local/share/info
rm -r -f aspell/usr/local/share/doc
rm -r -f aspell/usr/local/share/man
Shouldn't these should all go into an aspell-doc.tcz package, not just deleted and ignored?

Quote
rm -r -f aspell/usr/local/lib/*.la
rm -r -f aspell/usr/local/lib/*.so*
rm -r -f aspell/usr/local/lib/aspell-0.60/*.la
rm -r -f aspell/usr/local/lib/aspell-0.60/*.so
In general, if you delete *.so/*.la files, you break things. Possibly any packages that currently depend on aspell, and potentially any future packages that may need to depend on aspell.

aus9

  • Guest
Re: aspell rebuild tcz questions
« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2012, 05:20:49 PM »
althalus

Juanito and other devs have a way of telling what packages rely on aspell so I don't want to build a dev package if no existing packages rely on it.

if no one relied or asked for it in the past I want to keep my "workload" as small as possible and hope it reduces TCZ checker's workload.

2) I rarely build doc tcz but just link to the upstream maintainers doc page in the info file. That is me being lazy. If its really important I might write a wiki or a tcz news forum post.

3) ok will submit with *.la and *.so in the rebuild

thanks for the quick reply

Offline althalus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
Re: aspell rebuild tcz questions
« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2012, 05:25:30 PM »
althalus

Juanito and other devs have a way of telling what packages rely on aspell so I don't want to build a dev package if no existing packages rely on it.

if no one relied or asked for it in the past I want to keep my "workload" as small as possible and hope it reduces TCZ checker's workload.

Even if no existing packages rely on aspell, that still ignores any future needs. I generally like to follow an approach of "do it right or don't do it at all." As an extension maintainer, you should be focused on making other people's workloads lighter, before worrying about your own. Perhaps the core team or more active package maintainers disagree with me, but that's my feelings on the matter.

aus9

  • Guest
Re: aspell rebuild tcz questions
« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2012, 05:36:43 PM »
sorry to flog a dead horse but thats why I am posting....because if do the main things right, I may break other people's depends or work......as

Quote
The current tcz has them in the main package.

I will wait just a bit longer to see if gutmensch would like the extra work
 ;)

Offline althalus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
Re: aspell rebuild tcz questions
« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2012, 05:57:08 PM »
sorry to flog a dead horse but thats why I am posting....because if do the main things right, I may break other people's depends or work......as

Quote
The current tcz has them in the main package.

I will wait just a bit longer to see if gutmensch would like the extra work
 ;)
The include files are in the aspell.tcz package? Interesting. They're not listed in the files list that tce-ab was showing to me...

Online Rich

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11305
Re: aspell rebuild tcz questions
« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2012, 06:13:26 PM »
Hi aus9
Some packages in the repository include man, .la, and include files while others separate them out. In my opinion,
which way to go can be a bit of a judgment call. If it does not represent a large percentage of the package size, you
could just leave the dev and man files in the main package. The .so files definitely belong in the package and
should not be removed.

Offline solorin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
Re: aspell rebuild tcz questions
« Reply #7 on: November 13, 2012, 06:47:17 PM »
agreeing with althalus.
as a fellow user, i ask you to please make dev, doc & locale packages
as it asks you in the wiki instructions.
if you are using build scripts, it shouldn't require any extra effort.
if your package submission format is consistent, you won't need to ask the repo maintainers
to grep the dependency files.
if you're not going to take the time to maintain packages properly,
just compile them for your private use.

cheerio,
solorin
« Last Edit: November 13, 2012, 07:02:39 PM by solorin »
. . . if you don't know, now you know. . .
        ----- R.I.P. Biggie Smalls -----

aus9

  • Guest
Re: aspell rebuild tcz questions
« Reply #8 on: November 13, 2012, 07:10:20 PM »
I  thought .... *.la and *.so...... were supposed to be in lib_package-name but I can't see instructions for that issue in the wiki.....depending on whether the main package was already a lib package or something else

reference http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,14322.msg81104.html#msg81104

Maybe everyone is supposed to know this? or am I mistaken yet again?

 solorin
Quote
if you're not going to take the time to maintain packages properly,
just compile them for your private use.

I am not sure what you intend here, but it seems to me that past tcz checkers have been more flexible and not demanded the correct standards. That may be construed as being rude to some one here, that is not my intention either.

I prefer to state.....packages should comply with a set of rules....maybe in the wiki and will not be accepted if deviate. But the net result of that, is small packages need a few more lines of build script and the tcz checker may appear more unfriendly in the nicest kind of way.....and maybe we have less tcz creators or maintainers?

I am not claiming I know all the correct standards which is why I posted in the first place. And to re-hash you can see Rich is more flexible.....nice guy too!

[dons alfoil hat so Rich can not read what I am really thinking or looking at]  ;D
« Last Edit: November 13, 2012, 07:16:05 PM by aus9 »

Offline Juanito

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14634
Re: aspell rebuild tcz questions
« Reply #9 on: November 13, 2012, 07:35:00 PM »
Juanito and other devs have a way of telling what packages rely on aspell so I don't want to build a dev package if no existing packages rely on it.

Several of the earlier extensions have everything in one single extension rather than splitting the files out into *-dev, *-doc, *-locale and so on.

In keeping with the tinycore "smaller is better" philosophy, I think it makes sense to split out the dev files - even if they might not be used by another extension - in order to make the main extension smaller.

Just for the record:

*.a *.la -> dev extension (after --strip-debug)
*.so* -> main extension (after --strip-unneeded)

Offline solorin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
Re: aspell rebuild tcz questions
« Reply #10 on: November 13, 2012, 07:58:44 PM »
Quote
dons alfoil hat
no, i believe this:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bOFBeeudmI4/TlVtJAx9JVI/AAAAAAAAA_I/e6RUCP-kQoc/s1600/Weld-fire.jpg
is what you're looking for.

cheerio,
solorin
« Last Edit: November 13, 2012, 08:50:14 PM by solorin »
. . . if you don't know, now you know. . .
        ----- R.I.P. Biggie Smalls -----

aus9

  • Guest
Re: aspell rebuild tcz questions
« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2012, 08:05:35 PM »
solorin
How did you know I have a hot body?

Juanito
thanks thats what I would looking for, I won't mention what else I have just done in case it causes flames.

EDIT
I lied about deleting doc folder in first post there isn't one, I modified from a previous build naughty me

althalus

Yes old tcz has no include folder,  too tired to spot it last night....just .la and .so types
« Last Edit: November 14, 2012, 02:56:42 PM by aus9 »

aus9

  • Guest
Re: aspell rebuild tcz questions- discussion re-opened
« Reply #12 on: November 14, 2012, 02:57:44 PM »
To all

I have received a pm from a forum member. But as its great advice and should be helpful to all budding maintainers I will show it here, in generic forum, where the issue is splitting packages.....the correct thing to do....but splitting might cause other packages to break.

The solution is to change the dependency of the main package so its only dependency is the package-lib.tcz

That means the main package will have the executables, icons, menus etc and the files going to /lib will now go to new package-lib and include the *so type files

well that is my understanding.

BTW I am aware I should not reveal contents of pm without consent but I didn't reveal the actual contents

aus9

  • Guest
Re: aspell rebuild tcz questions
« Reply #13 on: November 14, 2012, 07:22:16 PM »
ok this just cleans up one issue

the old build script attempted to build the English dictiionary at the same time, but as the new packages weren't installed....I had an error or 2 for the dictionary.

so old build script removed as it will now be 2 build scripts.

cheers

EDIT

built aspell packages ok now
« Last Edit: December 12, 2012, 03:37:08 PM by aus9 »