Problem creating RPM Binary Packages that work..

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Aug 26, 2010, at 21:12, John Puffs wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On Aug 25, 2010, at 12:03, John Puffs wrote:
>> 
>>> I actually thought the macports package you built actually packed up all the dependencies as well. I was wrong. It would be an easy one click install for some things then.
>> 
>> 
>> MacPorts can do that, for example if you "sudo port mpkg someport" it will create an mpkg containing someport and all its dependencies. However mpkg is a format used only by Apple's Installer, so this only works on Mac OS X.
> 
> Will that work with "sudo port rpm someport", etc as well?

I'm not sure; I've never used an RPM, produced by MacPorts or otherwise. I thought you said you already tried it and it didn't work, in which case it works rather like "port pkg" (instead of "port mpkg") and includes only that port (instead of that port and its dependencies).

Reading "man port" just now, I see we also have "port srpm", which makes a source RPM, not a binary RPM; that might have a greater chance of working on Linux after having been packaged on a Mac. But you're still sailing in pretty much totally uncharted waters. And a lot of port authors write their ports to assume they are running on a Mac, and so will apply patches or other changes that are Mac specific without checking what platform they're actually on. Such ports could possibly be fixed to e.g. apply that patch only inside a "platform darwin" block.