macrofied kernel.spec

Eduardo Habkost ehabkost at redhat.com
Wed Aug 1 19:06:14 UTC 2007


On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:15:15PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
<snip>
> 
> Do -debuginfo packages for variants get produced automatically?
> 
> I'm assuming yes based on this part of the macro..
> 
>  > +%if %{with_debuginfo}\
>  > +%ifnarch noarch\
>  > +%{expand:%%files %{?2:%{2}-}debuginfo}\
>  > +%defattr(-,root,root)\
>  > +%if "%{elf_image_install_path}" != ""\
>  > +%{debuginfodir}/%{elf_image_install_path}/*-%{KVERREL}%{?2}.debug\
>  > +%endif\
>  > +%{debuginfodir}/lib/modules/%{KVERREL}%{?2}\
>  > +%{debuginfodir}/usr/src/kernels/%{KVERREL}%{?2:-%{2}}-%{_target_cpu}\
>  > +%{?-a:%{debuginfodir}%{-a*}.debug}\
>  > +%endif\
>  > +%endif\
>  > +%endif\
> 
> but for some reason, it doesn't sit right in my head.
> 
> I've no real fundamental objection to this, but don't leave the country
> or have any accidents for a while after it goes in :-)
> Just as when Jarod did the versioning overhaul, if something goes awry,
> you'd probably be able to figure out the problem quicker than those
> getting up to speed on what you've done so far.

Having been through the (painful) process of transforming the 2.6.20
FC-6 kernel spec into a kernel-xen spec recently, I liked the change
to have less duplicated information through the spec file.

The macro expansion syntax of RPM is ugly, but I would prefer that than
having a big spec file with lots of duplicated info.

If Roland hide, leave the country, or something like this, I offer myself
to help on this if something goes wrong.  :)

-- 
Eduardo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/kernel/attachments/20070801/d10e7be8/attachment.bin 


More information about the kernel mailing list