Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[merged] Add infrastructure for alternative name (currently nts) #497

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

cgwalters
Copy link
Member

See #405

This patch adds an (off by default) --enable-new-name build option
which currently defaults to nts. This is purely additive, and
the intention is that we'll support the rpm-ostree name in
perpetuity most likely.

At the moment, we add a new name for:

  • /usr/bin/$name
  • The systemd unit file

But we notably don't attempt to add a new name to the DBus API,
as it'd be a lot more invasive of a patch, and less payoff (it's
mostly just programs/scripts that interact with the DBus).

See coreos#405

This patch adds an (off by default) `--enable-new-name` build option
which currently defaults to `nts`.  This is purely additive, and
the intention is that we'll support the rpm-ostree name in
perpetuity most likely.

At the moment, we add a new name for:
  - /usr/bin/$name
  - The systemd unit file

But we notably *don't* attempt to add a new name to the DBus API,
as it'd be a lot more invasive of a patch, and less payoff (it's
mostly just programs/scripts that interact with the DBus).
Copy link
Member

@jlebon jlebon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Small optional nit. Feel free to disregard.

I'm not sure yet how I feel about "nts", though willing to give it a try. Definitely feels nice to type.

mv $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/rpm-ostree $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/$(primaryname)
ln -sf $(primaryname) $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/rpm-ostree
if BUILDOPT_NEW_NAME
INSTALL_DATA_HOOKS += install-bin-hook
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Though this should be ultimately be using install-exec-hook, no? So i.e. have a new analogous INSTALL_EXEC_HOOKS? But meh, not sure in what circumstances this would actually matter.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

From the automake manual:

Automake generates separate 'install-data' and 'install-exec' rules, in
case the installer is installing on multiple machines that share
directory structure--these targets allow the machine-independent parts to
be installed only once.  

But I feel confident in saying basically no one does that. Even the people who try it are going to be using binary rpms/debs/images, since not everything in the world uses automake.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So basically I just put everything under install-data-hook.

@jlebon
Copy link
Member

jlebon commented Oct 20, 2016

OK, that makes sense!

@rh-atomic-bot r+ 5751eac

@rh-atomic-bot
Copy link

⌛ Testing commit 5751eac with merge 328b85d...

@rh-atomic-bot
Copy link

☀️ Test successful - status-atomicjenkins
Approved by: jlebon
Pushing 328b85d to master...

@rh-atomic-bot rh-atomic-bot changed the title Add infrastructure for alternative name (currently nts) [merged] Add infrastructure for alternative name (currently nts) Oct 20, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants