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

Re: RPM roadmapping

On Sunday 29 July 2007 13:15:05 Robert Scheck wrote:

> ever looked to /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros or /usr/lib/rpm/macros and asked
> on the lists why this is not done by obvious reasons like backward compat
> etc.? IIRC there already was such a discussion maybe half or a year ago...

Iirc the problem for too many people with fixing/changing this only in fedora 
was, that they could not use the spec for other rpm based distributions 
without using the fedora macros. But when rpm itself gets fixed, there is no 
need fo these fedora macros. I hope I understood you correctly here, 
otherwise please explain what you meant.

> FYI: Currently you can't do a "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in "%install"
> automagically, because it breaks rebuilding of the kernel package, looks
> somebody were to lazy to write something sane. I tried to enable this
> feature on my rpm5.org installation, but IIRC there is at least one further
> failure, too.

I hope the kernel.spec can be fixed to work with this rm invocation, but  in 
case this is not the case, then %install could be defined in such a way that
%install --no-clean-buildroot
would not clean the buildroot in %install.

> Conclusion: Some Fedora Packaging Maintainers should write sane spec files
> first, there are other packaging issues, too (e.g. orphaned directories,
> dangling symlinks).

Is there any technical reason why a package system cannot determine the 
ownership of directories by itself? Imho a package management system should 
make it as easy as possible to create a package, i.e. do as much as possible 
by itself.  But what does this have to do with my improvement suggestions? 
And what insane spec files produce dangling symlinks? Is there a common 
mistake that creates them?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

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