David Walluck wrote: > Thomas Fitzsimmons wrote: > > A comment in aot-compile-rpm raises the possibility of including > > this script in RPM itself. Gary, do you think this is feasible in > > the FC5 time frame? > > Gary has already gotten a portion of this process into rpm, only > it's not being used by default. If we're going to put it in, we also > need the logic to (easily) enable it in the macros file for a > particular distribution, or better, from a particular .spec. > > I am disappointed that no one was interested in a discussion of > moving the natifying outside of the specific rpm, but I have just > given up on this idea. I certainly don't have the time or desire to > implement it myself. Having natifying outside of specific rpms was my original intention: https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/rpm-devel/2005-July/000507.html Indeed, aot-compile-rpm was specifically designed to be used in the same way as brp-python-bytecompile, though the --exclude option that everyone loves except me has broken this somewhat. The problem with this is as I outlined in the above email, in that there are five things that need to happen for transparent native compilation, of which aot-compile-rpm is just one step (and the simplest at that). The two most tricky steps (adding %post/%postun scripts, and adding dependencies for same) were the ones I really wanted to automate, but Jeff Johnson's solutions were basically "do it manually". Cheers, Gary
