On Sun, 9 Sep 2007, Andy Green wrote: > Somebody in the thread at some point said: > > > no, i caught that. but my point is that, if someone wants to > > simply RTFS, is any of that extra post-patch processing going to > > change the source? if not, then it's utterly irrelevant to the > > issue at hand, > > If not, it would be in %build... but to be fair to your point, it's > unusual and probably bad news to have wild stuff in %prep. yup, that was pretty much my point. > > and there should be an easy way for someone to download a source > > rpm, unload the tarball and apply the patches without going any > > further and getting hassled by all the BuildRequires stuff. > > Sure. Except that you can have multiple source tarballs and > multiple patches for each in the SRPM, and the unpack action is > totally regulated by the contents of %prep in the spec. If %prep > has funky stuff like wget in it for some reason, there is a valid > what you could call "PrepRequires" there for wget that is handled by > the BuildRequires. > > In short there is no "unload 'the' tarball" and "apply 'the' > patches", there is just "execute %prep" -- which probably does > something like that, but is open to do far more. > > Anyway if you want to patch it, there are two whole forks of RPM to > offer it to: double your chances ;-) or i could just whine and submit a bugzilla request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=283901 yeah, that's easier. :-) rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca ======================================================================== -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
