On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 02:47:12PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "AT" == Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> AT> No, I guess it won't, it only errored out on the Requires. But I
> AT> still feel this is very thin ice we're walking on.
>
> The method is required for everything else that wants to encode some
> information into the spec which is gathered by running something which
> is BuildRequire:d. All Ruby and PHP packages, for example.
>
> AT> for another we preclude many use cases of %() in specfiles,
> AT> e.g. anything that will break rpm's specfile parses if %() returns
> AT> %{nil}.
>
> You define your macros in such a way that they are provided
> meaningless but syntactically correct values in the case that the
> necessary executables aren't there.
So all the say PHP stuff like
Requires: php(zend-abi) = %{php_zend_api}
Requires: php(api) = %{php_core_api}
Requires: php-api = %{php_apiver}
have such failsafe definitions in the rhs macros? Obviously they do.
I understand the chicken-and-egg situation with %() in BRs, so BRs
should be kind of macro-less, but the rest should be able to use
anything the BRs provide w/o having to go through loops.
I think the workaround of requiring such careful design of macros is
more work than fixing koji.</says_the_man_wo_providing_the_patch>
Anyway my packages are in the build queue, if they get out
successfully (which they will, I hope) I'm a happy man, what else does
a man want of his life? ;)
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpT7bskcJT5O.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
