need to know if packaging our application stack as an rpm is the right way to go

mark meyer geeky2 at
Tue Feb 8 18:31:22 UTC 2011

hello stuart,

thanks for the great dialog,

please see interleaved.

> Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 13:04:22 -0500
> From: stuart at
> To: rpm-list at
> Subject: RE: need to know if packaging our application stack as an rpm is	the right way to go
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, mark meyer wrote:
> > 1 - find a Windows package tool that uses a text file to define the
> >     package.  Keep that in a packaging directory along with the RPM SPEC
> >     file.
> > 
> > i do not understand this - are you saying that i can create an rpm
> > distribution for windows?
> No.  Just that you would keep the Windows package spec and RPM package spec
> together to keep changes in sync as much as possible.

ok - got it.

> > our application stack is mostly jar and .swf files that are generated from a
> > large "top level" build (using ant).  the final part of the build creates a
> > large tar (or zip) file that we use distribute.  our custom installation
> > process then just un-archives and lays down the files on the box in the
> > appropriate locations, then fires several perl scripts that do all sorts of
> > things.
> The RPM SPEC file has several sections.
> The %prep section of your SPEC file extracts the source you are building
> into a clean directory tree.
> The %build section has your ant command for the top level build within
> the clean directory tree.

you lost me here.

are you saying that i have rpm build the distribution ??

i was thinking that i would have ant fire my top level build - (to create the distribution) then wrap the distribution in an rpm.

> The %install section puts all the runtime files (jar and swf) in proper
> position in a clean directory tree (usually under
> /var/tmp/rpm-build/packagename).  The rpm has a compressed cpio archive of
> these install files, plus lots of meta-data for dependencies, changelog, etc.
> The %post section runs your perl scripts to do final fix up after installing.
> > understood.  as mentioned above - since we more or less own both sides of the
> > street, we know EVERYTHING there is to know about the composition of the
> > install archive and the dependencies.
> Maybe is more what you need.  It is basically VCS+RPM
> for an entire distro.  (Roll your own distro.)  It is free if all your
> source is open source, pay if you need to keep some source proprietary.
> It is a great way to maintain your "router than runs from a CD to make it
> harder to hack".


we actually talked to these guys about three (3) years ago.  we had not quite got our packaging and distribution strategy down yet.

in the end, we opted to build our own (what we have now).

cost was a big factor.

thank you,

> -- 
> 	      Stuart D. Gathman <stuart at>
>     Business Management Systems Inc.  Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
> "Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
> a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm-list mailing list
> Rpm-list at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Rpm-list mailing list