The archive with CCRMA's spec is here -- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/mirror/fedora/linux/planetccrma/32/SRPMS/puredata-0.51.0-1.fc32.ccrma.src.rpm

I found it's way more complicated than mine. There are several patches, all the files to install are listed explicitly in separate packages (-core, -gui, -extra, etc.), there is even a desktop shortcut! So it quite serious, and I guess, it's the right way of doing the spec for the distro. But I'm not sure if you want to include all that patches to the master branch.

What I was trying to do is to "make install" system-wide with the option of rollback, using package manager. Certainly, this is not the best way to do it, but, it seems, that the old spec in linux/ directory shares my intention.

Maybe it's better just to delete spec from the repo? As it anyway won't build on modern systems :)

Thank you,
Vitaly

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 18:32, Claude Heiland-Allen <claude@mathr.co.uk> wrote:
Perhaps Planet CCRMA At Home [1] has newer RPM specs?  I think they have Pd 0.47 (2019) [2] [1] http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/ [2] http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/mirror/fedora/linux/planetccrma/30/x86_64/repoview/letter_p.group.html On 25/02/2021 17:33, Miller Puckette via Pd-dev wrote:
Cool! I'd better wait until Iohannes (the deb maintainer) verifies that that "-r" doesn't break debian packaging. I long ago stopped being able to follow the autotools build system - it's all I can do to watch over the c source itself. If the Makefile.am fix turns out to be OK with everyone, I'd be glad to update the "rpmspec" junk in the Pd dist to whatever you end up with. Perhaps we can then get Pd included in fedora. cheers Miller On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 07:57:51PM +0300, Vitaly Dolgov wrote:
Hi, everybody! Recently I was working on an RPM spec for Fedora as it doesn't have an officially maintained package, so I began to write my own. The spec is fairly simple, but there is the only one problem I want to discuss with you. In src/Makefile.am on line 400 there is command for absolute symlink, which is an error for RPM package builder, so I fixed it with the following patch before starting build: @@ -400 +400 @@ - $(LN_S) $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/pd $(DESTDIR)$(libpdbindir)/pd + $(LN_S) -r $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/pd $(DESTDIR)$(libpdbindir)/pd I was trying to be as close as possible to INSTALL.txt, but I'm a newbie in Pd development as well as in RPM spec writing, so I can do everything completely wrong. I'm sorry if that's the case. Is it possible to fix the aforementioned issue upstream or is there a better way to approach this problem? I also noticed that there is an RPM spec in linux/ directory in repo, but is seems it was not updated for 14 years or so. Is there any chance you update it in a future? Thank you, Vitaly _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev__;!!Mih3wA!RhBj6rGNn0U0W3nzFlN8_iXD5T6bqN_FldvL5AboQ4YyK9CBSZMIASdSO6O0$
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev