On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 12:27:16PM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 10/28/20 9:47 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 7:49 AM Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 10/27/20 1:06 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 6:24 AM Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 10/26/20 11:08 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > > Contemporary versions of Fedora automatically set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH > > > > > > based on the changelog entry date stamp. In scenarios where it already > > > > > > is defined, we do not want to redefine it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This part is okay. > > > > > > > > > > > Additionally, when building the libvirt package in an Open Build Service > > > > > > instance, the spec file is not present in %_specdir, but instead in %_sourcedir. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But this looks fishy. Is the %_specdir defined in that case? > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is (that comes from RPM itself), however the directory is empty. > > > > > > That feels like a bug in OBS then. IIUC this macro can be specified on > > > the rpmbuild's cmd line. Can't it set the %_specdir to be the same as > > > %_sourcedir? > > > > > > > Nothing about RPM mandates that %_specdir is actually *used* for anything. > > > > But this is not the case, is it? %_specdir is defined and points to an > actual directory. Having said that, I am not against the change, but maybe > we can document this weirdness somewhere? Also, with the latest specfile > discussion I'll let Andrea take a look. I'm inclined to just delete all the source epoch stuff from the spec and rely on the build environment set it if they want reproducable builds. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
