Heads up: Noarch Subpackages
Panu Matilainen
pmatilai at laiskiainen.org
Sat Feb 14 08:15:51 UTC 2009
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Michael DeHaan wrote:
> Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Michael DeHaan wrote:
>>
>>> Florian Festi wrote:
>>>> Ville Skyttä wrote:
>>>>> Regarding policy changes, one candidate for addition would be that if a
>>>>> non-noarch package does noarch subpackages, it MUST BuildRequire
>>>>> rpm-build >= 4.6.0. Or if there's a way to wrap the "BuildArch: noarch"
>>>>> for subpackages in a %if $something ... %endif where $something
>>>>> evaluates to true only in rpmbuild versions supporting these noarch
>>>>> subpackages, that'd be ok too. This is because if such a package is
>>>>> built with an earlier rpmbuild version, the build can succeed but not
>>>>> only the one expected subpackage will be noarch, but so will/may be the
>>>>> main package and all other subpackages as well. These builds often fail
>>>>> because of invalid options ending up passed to ./configure or debuginfo
>>>>> extracted but not packaged, but there are scenarios where the build
>>>>> doesn't fail and chaos ensues.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that this is a problem. But I very much dislike putting
>>>> BuildRequires to rpm versions into spec files. If we start with that
>>>> every package will have them very soon. We - RPM upstream - are already
>>>> working on the next improvements for rpmbuild that would also lead to
>>>> such BuildRequires. Even worse is that they will get outdated easily and
>>>> unnoticed - as they are only being some last line of defence - and though
>>>> be useless when they are really needed.
>>>>
>>>> As another solution for this problem we (ehm, Panu) will backport a check
>>>> that will make noarch packages (both regular and noarch) fail to build if
>>>> they contain binaries (==colored files==the right thing to do even for
>>>> emulators, bioses, cross compilers, ...[1]). This additional check will
>>>> be in place before koji will be updated [2].
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm a bit confused by this change. In my case, cobbler embeds a copy of
>>> elilo because we want to be able to make an install server that runs on
>>> x86/x86_64/other that also can install ia64/ppc/etc. Same for syslinux,
>>> etc -- you may want to run an install server on ia64 that serves up
>>> x86/x86_64 content. Thus this content is stuff we need to /serve up/
>>> rather than content we need to run on that host. I /think/ that's why
>>> I'm CC'd on this.
>>>
>>> It would be great if those packages themselves (syslinux) could have
>>> noarch portions, so any package could carry them as a payload.
>>>
>>> The alternative is asking the user to find this content themselves, and
>>> right now it's not possible to install elilo on a x86 system with yum,
>>> which makes it quite confusing on them.
>>>
>>> I would prefer that, at least, there was a way to bypass this binary file
>>> check in the specfile for apps that have a legitimate reason to do it.
>>
>> Yes, there's an override, precisely for these kind of reasons:
>>
>> # Should binaries in noarch packages terminate a build?
>> %_binaries_in_noarch_packages_terminate_build 1
>>
>> Turning that off in spec will make binaries in noarch packages a warning,
>> and it serves as documentation "yes we're doing something a bit special,
>> this is intentional" too.
>>
>> - Panu -
>
> Outstanding, do I have to if around which builds pass that flag/macro? (i.e.
> would an EPEL 4 build (or an older rpmbuild) understand that?)
No need to work around it for older rpm versions: it's just another macro
definition, not a new spec keyword.
- Panu -
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list