[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

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
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}
+* 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.

You stated that the packaging guide lines are defective.
You stated that this macro has been deprecated.
You stated that this has been discouraged in automake for years.

I don't read those statements as "asking" or "bureaucracy", nor do I find the implication that someone doesn't think "asking" of "bureaucracy", If I am wrong, I apologize.

However, with some 200 odd (a rough guess with grep) spec files that make use of %makeinstall your questioning of its use could probably have been more tactful and most certainly should have been directed to the wider audience that makes up FE


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