On 02/25/2017 06:12 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 02/25/2017 06:52 AM, Alice Wonder wrote:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=861692
The source RPM there uses
%if 0%{?rhel}
# not upstreamed
Patch500: 0001-disable-libe-book-support.patch
Patch501: 0001-fix-build-of-bundled-libzmf-with-boost-1.56.patch
Patch502: 0001-allow-to-build-bundled-libzmf-on-aarch64.patch
Patch503: 0001-impl.-missing-function.patch
%endif
(and more than just those) resulting in those patches not being included
in the src.rpm because the rpm was not built on rhel/centos.
My understanding was that platform specific patches were suppose to have
the %if macro where the patch is applied, but should not be where the
source for the patch is defined.
Been a long time since I was a fedora packager so I don't know what
current packaging guidelines are, but that just seems wrong.
Is it wrong?
It depends .. in the Red Hat world, this is used so that patches are
applied on RHEL but not on Fedora. That is the purpose of that patch.
The RHEL team added something to that patch for RHEL that is different
than Fedora.
So, if built on Fedora, those patches are not installed. Why would that
be a problem?
Ouch, looking through the spec file it appears that it doesn't use the
normal %patch mechanism to apply patches. Looks like a change in RPM
itself that I am not very fond of.
It appears to use a git command to apply patches from some kind of a
patch macro, and apparently with sources too.
It's just my opinion but I am becoming less and less fond of RPM - just
like I became less and less fond of GNOME which I use to really love.
Guess I now know how dad felt when all the AIX servers he managed
started switching to that new-fangled Linux operating system...
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
