On 01/07/2016 05:57 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 7.1.2016 v 11:17 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a):
>>>>>> "VO" == Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com>
writes:
> VO> What are these special macros you need to generate SRPM? There
> VO> shouldn't be any IMO.
>
> It's not uncommon for a spec to be syntactically invalid if a macro is
> not defined, which prevents SRPM generation. Rather than including line
> noise boilerplate in every spec to conditionally define them to nonsense
> values, or simply defining them there, the macros are added to the
> buildroot.
>
> If this were done more consistently, we could actually get rid of a
> significant amount of line noise.
>
> - J<
You can get rid of these macros for SRPM build typically just by
replacing %{my_macro} by %{?my_macro}, i.e. adding just single question
mark. If you follow this practice, we could get rid of not just
significant amount of lines but also of significant amount of
-srpm-macros packages and all the noise you now requires just to
generate SRPM. Don't forget, that the macros are lazy evaluated, so you
don't have to have every possible macro defined when building SRPM.
Vít
Not if the macro is evaluated for a BuildRequires line or
Exclude/ExclusiveArch, then the resulting src.rpm is incorrect. But for other
cases you are correct.
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301
http://www.nwra.com