Packaging Committee Meeting Summary (2010-02-03)
Richard W.M. Jones
rjones at redhat.com
Sun Feb 7 22:27:37 UTC 2010
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 12:24:08AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Paul Howarth wrote:
> > Wouldn't this problem be avoided if the SRPM was built in a buildroot
> > containing all of the buildreqs (like the binary RPMs are)?
> > It would be an extra step in the build process, but not a big extra step.
> > 1. Build SRPM in minimal buildroot to determine buildreqs (as currently)
> > 2. Populate buildroot with buildreqs (as currently)
> > 3. Rebuild SRPM in this buildroot (this is the extra step)
> > 4. Build binary RPMs in this buildroot (as currently)
> This was discussed in the 2010-01-08 FESCo meeting (with people from rel-eng
> also present). It was decided that this was not worth the effort and that
> using macros in SRPMs in this way is not something we want to support.
Normally automation and lack of duplication is regarded as a good
Package X and mingw32-X are related. The description of mingw32-X
could be something like:
"This package is the library X, cross-compiled for 32 bit Windows.
Do NOT install this package if you want the native library X
(install package 'X' instead).
Install this package only if you want to cross-compile a program
which uses library X."
In almost any other area of computer science one would use a macro for
this. RPM doesn't always expand macros in the %description section.
That's a bug in RPM and/or the build system.
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
More information about the devel