Page 251
Since the baz library's package name is not to start with foo, we need to use the -n option on its %package directive:
%package -n bazlib
Our requirements further state that foo-server and foo-client are to have the same version as the main package.
One of the time-saving aspects of using subpackages is that there is no need to duplicate information for each subpackage if it is already defined in the main package. Therefore, since the main package's preamble has a version tag defining the version as 2.7, the two subpackages that lack a version tag in their preambles will simply inherit the main package's version definition.
Since the bazlib subpackage's preamble contains a version tag, it must have its own unique version.
In addition, each subpackage must have its own summary tag.
So, based on these requirements, our spec file now looks like this:
Name: foo Version: 2.7 Release: 1 Source: foo-2.7.tgz CopyRight: probably not Summary: The foo app, and the baz library needed to build it Group: bogus/junque %description This is the long description of the foo app, and the baz library needed to build it... %package server Summary: The foo server %package client Summary: The foo client %package -n bazlib Version: 5.6 Summary: The baz library
We can see the subpackage structure starting to appear now.
There are a few more tags we should add to the subpackages in our sample spec file. In fact, if these tags are not present, RPM will issue a most impressive warning:
# rpm -ba foo-2.7.spec Package: foo Package: foo-server Field must be present : Description Field must be present : Group
Page 252
Package: foo-client Field must be present : Description Field must be present : Group Package: bazlib Field must be present : Description Field must be present : Group Spec file check failed!! Tell [email protected] if this is incorrect. #
Our spec file is incomplete. The bottom line is that each subpackage must have these three tags:
It's easy to see that the first two tags are required, but what about summary? Well, we lucked out on that one: We already included a summary for each subpackage in our sample spec file.
Let's take a look at the %description tag first.
As you've probably noticed, the %description tag differs from other tags. First of all, it starts with a percent sign, making it look similar to a directive. Second, its data can span multiple lines. The third difference is that the %description tag must include the name of the subpackage it describes. This is done by appending the subpackage name to the %description tag itself. So, given these %package directives:
%package server %package client %package -n bazlib
our %description tags would start with
%description server %description client %description -n bazlib
Notice that we've included the -n option in the %description tag for bazlib. This was intentional, as it makes the name completely unambiguous.
Okay, let's take a look at the spec file after we've added the appropriate %descriptions, along with group tags for each subpackage:
Name: foo Version: 2.7 Release: 1
Page 253
Source: foo-2.7.tgz CopyRight: probably not Summary: The foo app, and the baz library needed to build it Group: bogus/junque %description This is the long description of the foo app, and the baz library needed to build it... %package server Summary: The foo server Group: bogus/junque %description server This is the long description for the foo server... %package client Summary: The foo client Group: bogus/junque %description client This is the long description for the foo client... %package -n bazlib Version: 5.6 Summary: The baz library Group: bogus/junque %description -n bazlib This is the long description for the bazlib...
Let's take a look at what we've done. We've created a main preamble as we normally would. We then created three additional preambles, each starting with a %package directive. Finally, we added a few tags to the subpackage preambles.
But what about version tags? Aren't the server and client subpackages missing them?
Not really. Remember that if a subpackage is missing a given tag, it will inherit the value of that tag from the main preamble. We're well on our way to having a complete spec file, but we aren't quite there yet.
Let's continue by looking at the next part of the spec file that changes when building subpackages.
In an ordinary single-package spec file, the %files list is used to determine which files are actually going to be packaged. It is no different when building subpackages. What is different is that there must be a %files list for each subpackage.
Since each %files list must be associated with a particular %package directive, we simply label each %files list with the name of the subpackage, as specified by each %package directive. Going back to our example, our %package lines were
%package server %package client %package -n bazlib
Page 254
Therefore, our %files lists should start with
%files server %files client %files -n bazlib
In addition, we need the main package's %files list, which remains unnamed:
%files
The contents of each %files list is dictated entirely by the software's requirements. If, for example, a certain file needs to be packaged in more than one package, it's perfectly all right to include the filename in more than one list.
The %files list wields considerable power over subpackages. It's even possible to prevent a package from being created by using the %files list. But is there a reason you'd want to go to the trouble of setting up subpackages, only to keep one from being created?
Actually, there is. Take, for example, the case where client/server_based software is to be packaged. Certainly, it makes sense to create two subpackages: one for the client and one for the server. But what about the main package? Is there any need for it?
Quite often there's no need for a main package. In those cases, removing the main %files list entirely will result in no main package being built.
Keep in mind that an empty %files list (that is, a %files list that contains no files) is not the same as not having a %files list at all. As noted previously, entirely removing a %files list results in RPM not creating that package. However, if RPM comes across a %files list with no files, it will happily create an empty package file.
This feature (which also works with subpackage %files lists) comes in handy when used in concert with conditionals. If a %files list is enclosed by a conditional, the package will be created (or not) based on the evaluation of the conditional.
Okay, let's update our sample spec file. Here's what it looks like after adding each of the subpackages' %files lists:
Name: foo Version: 2.7 Release: 1 Source: foo-2.7.tgz CopyRight: probably not