Opinions: Providing "buildsys-macros" in the installed system

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 11:31 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 09:04 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> >> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>> - whether the build-sys macros are being merged into redhat-rpm-config
> >>> doesn't matter much, because redhat-rpm-config already kills rpmbuild
> >>> "--target"
> >> Huh? Worked just fine for me a few days ago to build i686 kernel rpms on 
> >> an x86_64 host, using only the following:
> >>
> >> $ setarch i386 rpmbuild -bb --target i686 kernel-2.6.spec
> > Now, build for a non-rh target or an incompatible arch and examine %
> > _host, %_build, %_target and other %values (eg. CC, or $*FLAGS)
> 
> It seems a bit unreasonable to expect us to support building something
> like solaris sparc rpms on linux i386...
I don't expect Fedora to support such endeavors, but I do think I can
expect Fedora/RH not to interfere (In a nutshell, all this can be
subsumed as redhat-rpm-config breaks "rpmbuild --target").

Fact is, I am using rpm/rpmbuild to cross-build packages for other OSs
but Fedora. rpmbuild (modulo bugs) supports it, but redhat-rpm-config
interferes.

>  Or really, building any non-rh
> or incompatible arch target. Even in the non-rh but still linux and a
> compatible arch case, a build chroot makes a lot more sense to me.
> Perhaps I don't fully understand what it is you're trying to accomplish.
> 
> >> Are you referring to the fact you have to make a call to setarch to
> >> get 
> >> it to fully do the right thing?
> > Well, the fact you have to apply setarch is a bug.

I should have said "IMO" ;)

> I think that's a valid concern.

> > But ... this is not related to what I am referring to:
> > The more exotic the target are, the more brokenness you'll encounter.
> > 
> > E.g. try to implement custom /usr/lib/rpm/<target>/macros for an exotic
> > target ... redhat-rpm-config causes this not to be used. rpm -e
> > redhat-rpm-config magically makes this work ... (And this is only the
> > tip of the iceberg :( ).
> 
> Like you said, "the more exotic..." I think you're trying to do some
> things that the vast majority of users don't and shouldn't do.
That's the problem "99%" of users don't do ... has led to bugs
interfering with the remaining "1%".

>  Sounds
> like you have a work-around already too.
Well, I am working on it. So far my work around is to ban
redhat-rpm-config from the system I am using to build these rpms.

>  Not to say that if it isn't
> straight-forward enough we shouldn't fix up redhat-rpm-config to play
> nice in this situation, but I don't think its something that is going to
> be high-priority on most people's todo list.
Of cause, I don't expect "immediate" reaction. Fact is, I am complaining
about this for years, but NOTHING has happened on RH's part. Instead I
am seeing things getting gradually worser with each Fedora release.

Ralf