Closed YPatois closed 1 year ago
I think some people might find it useful, though I don't have a repository server to host it.
Would it "suffice" to have the RPM package pushed as an artifact of dellhw_exporter GitHub releases?
Hi, Thanks for your reply. Having the RPM pushed is a first good enough step. Then people who can host it could wrok from that.
However, the way I edited the code make this process still complicated, as version is hardcoded, etc.
Using autotools or cmake would makes it way easier, but I don't want to break everything that's working fine and done some way certainly for good reasons.
If you want, you can have a look at what I did and tell if that may be merged at some point. Then, if you agree I would likely take a minimal approach, putting a dependency on autotools to generates a properly version tagged dellhw_exporter.spec from some dellhw_exporter.spec.in (alternative is to use a simple awk/whatever hook to grab current version and stuff it into the spec file) so that the RPM can be built from any tagged release just by a "make rpm"' command.
What do you think?
Tks.
If you want, you can have a look at what I did and tell if that may be merged at some point.
A PR of the current state sounds good.
Using a script to "extract" the version number from the VERSION
file would be good.
Hi, Thanks. Let me a week or so to clean it properly and I'll make a PR, using the VERSION file value as you suggested. I'll let you know.
Hi,
A bit late but here where I am: I added a way to dynamically add the VERSION tag in the spec file (using awk - hum, should add that in the builddeps), however, I see some inconsistancy in the files and would like your opinion: In Makefile, line 71 (your code, not my fork): cp .build/dellhw_exporter $(PACKAGE_DIR)/usr/bin
In systemd/dellhw_exporter.service, line 7: ExecStart=/usr/sbin/dellhw_exporter $OPTIONS Packaging is done in bin directory, while the systemd calls from sbin. I fixed that in RPM by moving dellhw_exporter to sbin, not bin.
But was the cp to bin intentional or a bug?
Thanks.
@YPatois No worries, thanks for working on this!
But was the cp to bin intentional or a bug?
Should be a bug.
Feel free to throw all your changes into a PR and I'll gladly review them :)
Closing as we have a make rpm target now thanks to your PR #69.
Hi,
To deploy this package on RH derivates, a "make rpm" target could be useful. I forked and edited a bit to make a crude (working) stuff, but that should be enhanced.
Is that something that could be useful to others?
Regards,
Yannick