search

darrylb123 / usbrelay

Control usb relay - based on hidapi
GNU General Public License v2.0
310 stars 98 forks source link

Submit RPM for review? #86

Closed mefuller closed 2 years ago

mefuller commented 2 years ago

Here's a bunch of hacks and changes that should tidy things up. I tested locally with some AliExpress relay boards and everything works from the installation with the Python module being importable, etc. Builds checked out locally and on COPR (F35-37, all the architectures): https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fuller/test-builds/build/4307700/

Some additional thoughts: -once this is merged, we need to make a new code release/version and update the spec to that -maybe bump to 1.0? -if the mqtt/sysusers stuff isn't working still, perhaps drop that from the current package and save it for an update (but keep the information and instructions here on GH for end-users)

darrylb123 commented 2 years ago

Thanks Mark, I will have to go back over it to remember how to build etc. Can't remember why the mqtt daemon wasn't working.

I'll check it out later today.

Darryl

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022, 6:40 am Mark E Fuller, @.***> wrote:

Here's a bunch of hacks and changes that should tidy things up. I tested locally with some AliExpress relay boards and everything works from the installation with the Python module being importable, etc. Builds checked out locally and on COPR (F35-37, all the architectures): https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fuller/test-builds/build/4307700/

Some additional thoughts: -once this is merged, we need to make a new code release/version and update the spec to that -maybe bump to 1.0? -if the mqtt/sysusers stuff isn't working still, perhaps drop that from the current package and save it for an update (but keep the information and instructions here on GH for end-users)

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

https://github.com/darrylb123/usbrelay/pull/86 Commit Summary

File Changes

(9 files https://github.com/darrylb123/usbrelay/pull/86/files)

Patch Links:

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/darrylb123/usbrelay/pull/86, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABTSUVKRRQ543QNDJQY7B3DVGWWS7ANCNFSM5UGX7B5Q . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

mefuller commented 2 years ago

@darrylb123 absolutely no rush I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to this

darrylb123 commented 2 years ago

Do you have any recommendation on how to implement library versioning? I already have the ability to query the git version from the library if it is built from git.

This won't work for the RPM though, since it's not built from git??

Will rpm tools ever support git rather than archive files?

Darryl

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022, 7:13 am Mark E Fuller, @.***> wrote:

@darrylb123 https://github.com/darrylb123 absolutely no rush I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to this

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/darrylb123/usbrelay/pull/86#issuecomment-1107919563, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABTSUVOQOQB4C355FDFCHALVGW2OVANCNFSM5UGX7B5Q . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

darrylb123 commented 2 years ago

Pulled your request. BTW, the changes were merged back to master as the old python package stopped building on Ubuntu, but the new wheel package worked fine Now at 1.0

Darryl

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:52 AM Darryl Bond @.***> wrote:

Do you have any recommendation on how to implement library versioning? I already have the ability to query the git version from the library if it is built from git.

This won't work for the RPM though, since it's not built from git??

Will rpm tools ever support git rather than archive files?

Darryl

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022, 7:13 am Mark E Fuller, @.***> wrote:

@darrylb123 https://github.com/darrylb123 absolutely no rush I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to this

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/darrylb123/usbrelay/pull/86#issuecomment-1107919563, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABTSUVOQOQB4C355FDFCHALVGW2OVANCNFSM5UGX7B5Q . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

mefuller commented 2 years ago

Do you have any recommendation on how to implement library versioning? I already have the ability to query the git version from the library if it is built from git.

This won't work for the RPM though, since it's not built from git??

Will rpm tools ever support git rather than archive files?

Darryl

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022, 7:13 am Mark E Fuller, @.***> wrote:

@darrylb123 https://github.com/darrylb123 absolutely no rush I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to this

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/darrylb123/usbrelay/pull/86#issuecomment-1107919563, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABTSUVOQOQB4C355FDFCHALVGW2OVANCNFSM5UGX7B5Q . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

For version a.b, Fedora usually ships library.so, library.so.a, library.so.a.b and symlinks them together so that there's only one real file. The idea here is to support development better.

It's certainly possible to build and version by git commit and I can do that, but Fedora prefers (semantic) versioned releases