[Fedora-packaging] [perl-Coro] Work-aroung missing libecb package on build-triggering host

[Petr Pisar]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 01:19:40PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/22/2012 05:34 PM, Petr Pisar wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:14:25AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >>On 10/22/2012 10:06 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>>On 10/22/2012 03:47 PM, Petr Pisar wrote:
> >>>>--- a/perl-Coro.spec
> >>>>+++ b/perl-Coro.spec
> >>>>@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ Requires:       perl(EV) >= 3
> >>>>  Requires:       perl(Event) >= 1.08
> >>>>  Requires:       perl(Guard) >= 0.5
> >>>>  Requires:       perl(Storable) >= 2.15
> >>>>-Provides:       bundled(libecb) = %(rpm -q libecb --qf '%{VERSION}')
> >>>>+Provides:       bundled(libecb)%(rpm -q libecb --qf ' = %{VERSION}'
> >>>>2>/dev/null)
> >>>
> >>>I could be wrong, but IIRC, calling rpm inside of rpm specs is not
> >>>allowed in Fedora.
> >>>
> >>>Apart of this, what you are doing is rendering your built
> >>>non-deterministic - Another "strictly forbidden" item.
> >>
> >>Agreed.  What you're trying to say essentially is that the bundled
> >>libecb version matches the system/non-bundled version, which really
> >>doesn't make any sense.  I'd suggest you simply remove the
> >>versioning (or list the real bundled version some other way).
> >>
> >This is something like static library. Thus code gets frozen into the package
> >at build-time. So I concluded it's good idea to know which version of the
> >library the binary package incorporates.
> >
> >However if you think this is bad idea I will remove it.
> 
> Yes, I do - I am insisting on the rpm calls to be removed.
> 
Could you explain why calling rpm from spec file is bad idea?

-- Petr
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/perl-devel/attachments/20121023/cd13de0f/attachment.sig>