[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: rpms/poker-eval/FC-4 poker-eval.spec,1.8,1.9



On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 17:05 +1200, Michael J. Knox wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 16:41 +1200, Michael J. Knox wrote:
> >> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 21:29 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> >>>> Author: xulchris
> >>>>
> >>>> Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/poker-eval/FC-4
> >>>> In directory cvs-int.fedora.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv29974/FC-4
> >>>>
> >>>> Modified Files:
> >>>> 	poker-eval.spec 
> >>>>  %install
> >>>> -rm -rf %{buildroot}
> >>>> -make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
> >>>> +%{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}
> >>>> +%makeinstall
> >>>>  %changelog
> >>>> +* Fri Jun 09 2006 Christopher Stone <chris stone gmail com> 131.0-2
> >>>> +- Add pkgconfig to devel Requires
> >>>> +- Use macros for system commands
> >>>> +- Use %%makeinstall macro
> >>> Why the %makeinstall?  makeinstall is an anachronism and should only be
> >>> used if make DESTDIR=... install is nonfunctional.
> >> I don't see the use of %makeinstall being discouraged in the packaging 
> >> guidelines or even discussed for that matter.
> > A defect in the guidelines.
> > 
> >> If this is something that shouldn't be used or whatever, then you should 
> >> probably have FESCo add it to the  packaging guidelines. A lot (most of 
> >> actually) of the packages I have make use of %makeinstall and this is 
> >> the first time I have seen it being mentoned.
> > This only means you haven't encountered the nasty side-effects of 
> > %makeinstall.
> > 
> > The working principle %makeinstall is based on, has been necessary for
> > automake-1.4x based configure scripts, but has been deprecated and
> > discouraged in automake for many years.
> > 
> > Besides some packages suffering from bugs in DESTDIR support most modern
> > packages support DESTDIR.
> > 
> 
> Then please make the suggestion to FESCo to add a change to the 
> packaging guide. I think its unfair to put the spot light on someone for 
> doing something that is not being discouraged in the Fedora packaging 
> guide lines.

Pardon, you find it unfair to ask people to think about what he is
doing? You find it's appropriate to resort to bureaucracy?

Sorry, I beg to differ.

Ralf



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]