On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 18:16 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 05:55:03PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> - Doesn't work in your several %arch's case.
I didn't want to obfuscate it, better use sane and common defaults.
%buildroot isn't sane. It clashes and breaks on %arch
The argument about arch was relative and not absolute anyway:
more important than id, therefor if we skip arch, we need to skip id".
That's your argumentation.
Mine is: The current build root supports id, but breaks on arch (==
defect of the recommendation) => We should fix this.
But the scheme above even takes care of your multiuser-
build-the-same-package-corner-case, so at least you have no reason not
to be happy.
== no substantial progress on features in comparison to the current
> - Do %name, %version, %release always expand correctly (Rpm
> a bug, where at least %name or %version (I don't recall exactly)
> occasionally is not being expanded correctly)?
I've never seen a macro fail using name/version and I use them
quite a lot.
I once encountered it when simultaneously building several packages from
several source packages in one rpm.spec.
It had been a spec similar to this
%package -n yyy
In this case, the order of rpm sections (%build, %install etc.) is of
essential importance. Depending on where they are located, %version or
%name expands to either xxx or yyy rsp. 1 or 2.
Unfortunately I don't have an example at hand to reproduce it.