On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Andreas Thienemann wrote: > On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > I've been talking with some of the SuSE guys and we agree there's some > > overlap or at least coordination between their buildsystem and ours. The > > first obvious low hanging fruit is common macros. For those who wonder > > "why would we help OpenSuSE?" the answer is common goals, and better user > > experiences. > > You sure about there being much overlap and thus a certain incentive to > develop common macros? > > The last time I was paid to look at SuSE was around 2003 or so and back > then there was not much common except the .spec suffix. > BuildRequires weren't used at all (admittedly, Red Hat was rather frugal > wrt BRs) and I haven't seen much use of %macros at all. > > AFAICS BuildRequirements were implemented by parsing #-commented lines and > adding the named packages to the dependency list. > > Has this behaviour changed? > Don't know, we'll need someone committed to look at issues like this. > On the other hand: Is the buildsystem the right place to work on common > goals? I'd assume that specifically for macros, rpm.org is a better place. > Possibly but we don't have any control over rpm.org, we do, however, have control over our buildsystems. -Mike _______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
