First of all, thank you; this is exactly the type of constructive feedback I'm looking
for - I was beginning to lose hope.
- Panu said:
"AFAICS from a brief look, what this does is quite contrary to rpm design."
I agree with this statement. I think you are exactly correct about what the RPM build
process was originally built for. However, with the rise of interpreted languages, I
believe that the old style of building RPMsĀ (combining compiling with packaging), while
not obsolete, certainly accounts for a lower number of use cases than it previously did.
More often, (just like how togo was conceived) a local system administrator can't find
a tool that does exactly what he needs it to do; so he builds his own. Eventually, he
finds his own scripts useful (perhaps to no one other than himself), but he wants to
properly account for them - then he goes to find out how to make a simple RPM and is
immediately "turned off" to the whole process.
In other words, what was once an almost non-existent or seldom used facet of RPM building
now accounts for a much larger portion of use cases. However, in my opinion, relatively
little has been done to accommodate those cases - and what *has* generally deviates too
much from "old style" RPM building to be expandable beyond its original
purpose.
This is exactly where I think there is a hole in the process, and is what Togo attempts to
fill.
- Panu said:
"This is kinda telling:
Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.mlcEGy
...
+ exit 0"
This is precisely what I'm talking about and why I'm here. I never knew that. Of
course, it's easy enough to find once you know what you're looking for, but I
never thought to look because I wasn't receiving any errors. My build environment
builds a technically functioning RPM, but immediately caused confusion when someone other
than me looked at what it was doing.
This is what I'm trying to nail with this discussion; a set of good practices and a
clean environment for introducing people to RPMs.
I will make the change to move that bit of code into the %install section, where it
belongs.
- Panu said:
"There's also absolutely nothing wrong with creating helpers around rpm
packaging, but it's always better if such helpers work in a way that
also educate their users by doing things "the right way"."
I couldn't agree more; it's the exact point of why I'm here. I do not claim to
know what's best, or I wouldn't be asking for anyone's input. :)
Thank you, again, for your constructive feedback.
-Gene
--
packaging mailing list
packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging