[libvirt PATCH] rpm: merge mingw sub-packages into native spec

[Pavel Hrdina]

On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 12:59:36PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 01:56:43PM +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 12:54:09PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 01:52:33PM +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 01:22:17PM -0400, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > > > One specfile containing both native and mingw builds is the
> > > > > new best practice for Fedora. This reduces the maint burden
> > > > > and ensures the mingw packages don't fall behind.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange at redhat.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  .gitlab-ci.yml        |   2 +-
> > > > >  libvirt.spec.in       | 287 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  meson.build           |  17 +--
> > > > >  mingw-libvirt.spec.in | 327 ------------------------------------------
> > > > >  4 files changed, 293 insertions(+), 340 deletions(-)
> > > > >  delete mode 100644 mingw-libvirt.spec.in
> > > > 
> > > > The patch looks good but there are some changes not mentioned directly.
> > > > 
> > > > With this patch we will build MinGW packages by default on Fedora. Not
> > > > sure if that is desirable. I would rather have it the other way around
> > > > if it works for Fedora best practice.
> > > 
> > > Fedora has shipped the native & mingw builds for years now. This just
> > > merges them into one spec. There's no change in what we actually build
> > > from Fedora POV. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean ?
> > 
> > From Fedora POV everything is probably the same but for everybody else
> > this might be regression that would require using the --define as we
> > need to do for gitlab-ci.
> 
> IMHO if a contributor using the upstream spec to build RPMs, they need
> to just deal with whatever the current packaging has defined. Ultimately
> you can still do 'dnf builddep' to get the list of deps installeds,
> including the mingw ones now.

I just wanted to point it out as it was not mentioned in the commit
message and might not be obvious from the code itself. Since I don't
have a strong opinion about this change

Reviewed-by: Pavel Hrdina <phrdina at redhat.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20220809/bc041966/attachment.sig>