Opinions: Providing "buildsys-macros" in the installed system
Michael Schwendt
mschwendt.tmp0701.nospam at arcor.de
Thu Mar 29 06:53:04 UTC 2007
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:34:05 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> In our buildsystem we use a 'buildsys-macros' package that defines some things
> during the package builds, like the definition of %{dist}, and of %{fedora}
> or %{rhel}. Now we're talking about adding even more macros to add
> convenience for packagers that are packaging the same thing for multiple
> Fedora releases and RHEL releases (Hurray EPEL!).
>
> However, with more of these macros in use, the usage case of rebuilding the
> srpms on your local system starts to get harder, as these macros will be
> undefined and you'll have interesting results. Perhaps surprising results.
> I propose we ship these macros in something like redhat-rpm-config for each
> release, so that when somebody is rebuilding a package on their system, the
> macros are defined correctly for whatever release they are running. If they
> are rebuilding for another release/distribution, they really should be using
> mock, and having redhat-rpm-config define the right things within their mock
> chroot.
>
> In the past I remember there being resistance to shipping these on the
> installed system, however my Test3 addled brain is not able to recall what
> those are. Are there any differing opinions on this matter, anybody that
> disagrees with me? I'd love to hear it and thought out reasons against
> taking the step.
>
> Thanks!
Adding macro usage without adding the macros to "something like
redhat-rpm-config" is not good.
Historically, the plan has always been to add the macros to such a
package. Hearing about "resistance" is news to me.
It is already unexpected and inconvenient enough to need "--define fedora 6"
or similar when rebuilding some packages.
More information about the devel
mailing list