<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/07/2016 02:36 AM, Karanbir Singh
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:169530CE-53AA-45AB-BB5C-57B42F206063@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="gmail_quote">On 7 November 2016 02:13:05 GMT+00:00,
Thomas F Herbert <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:therbert@redhat.com"><therbert@redhat.com></a> wrote:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<p>Folks,</p>
<p>I have code to build DPDK RPM's built for 16.07 release
merged upstream in new dpdk-rpm project we started in fd.io.
I also modified the vpp rpm creation so it was more distro
friendly, so it could be built from a dist tarball or a
SRPM.</p>
<p>My questions are about RPM naming conventions for Centos
for DPDK, vpp and other upstream NFV related projects to
come.<br>
</p>
<p>I built RPMs previously for OVS/DPDK and DPDK in OPNFV and
stuck pretty to the Fedora naming conventions and nobody
complained. But somehow, I don't think that what I have done
so far will meet the more strict standards of the DISTRO.<br>
</p>
<p>To begin with, could you please point me to some guidelines
for file names. I see them for Fedora everywhere but I am
fuzzy on what would be required for Centos.</p>
<p>In order for the changelog to be meaningful it seems that
there should be a git hash tag appended to file name.
however, when the RPM is an unaltered "pure" upstream
release with no patches I am not sure this is necessary.<br>
</p>
<p>Forgive me if these seem like stupid questions but I am
trying to get a few bits together upstream and then I should
be able to start building in Koji for the NFV SIG and I want
to make sure I do things "right!"<br>
</p>
<p>--Tom<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<b>Thomas F Herbert</b> <br>
SDN Group <br>
Office of Technology <br>
<b>Red Hat</b></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br clear="all">
Hi Thomas<br>
<br>
We rely on the Fedora naming and packaging guidelines. If you are
aligned with their specifications - you should be all set on our
side too.<br>
</blockquote>
Please double check: Here is the built 16.07 dpdk RPM built in
fd.io:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://nexus.fd.io/content/repositories/fd.io.master.centos7/io/fd/rpm_dpdk/dpdk/16.07.0-4.el7.centos.x86_64/">https://nexus.fd.io/content/repositories/fd.io.master.centos7/io/fd/rpm_dpdk/dpdk/16.07.0-4.el7.centos.x86_64/</a><br>
I am not sure the ".0" should be there?<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:169530CE-53AA-45AB-BB5C-57B42F206063@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<br>
Regards<br>
--<br>
Sent on the move, excuse my typos
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<b>Thomas F Herbert</b>
<br>
SDN Group
<br>
Office of Technology
<br>
<b>Red Hat</b></div>
</body>
</html>