On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Michael DeHaan wrote:
Florian Festi wrote:
Ville Skyttä wrote:
Regarding policy changes, one candidate for addition would be that if a
non-noarch package does noarch subpackages, it MUST BuildRequire rpm-build
>= 4.6.0. Or if there's a way to wrap the "BuildArch: noarch" for
subpackages in a %if $something ... %endif where $something evaluates to
true only in rpmbuild versions supporting these noarch subpackages, that'd
be ok too. This is because if such a package is built with an earlier
rpmbuild version, the build can succeed but not only the one expected
subpackage will be noarch, but so will/may be the main package and all
other subpackages as well. These builds often fail because of invalid
options ending up passed to ./configure or debuginfo extracted but not
packaged, but there are scenarios where the build doesn't fail and chaos
ensues.
I agree that this is a problem. But I very much dislike putting
BuildRequires to rpm versions into spec files. If we start with that every
package will have them very soon. We - RPM upstream - are already working
on the next improvements for rpmbuild that would also lead to such
BuildRequires. Even worse is that they will get outdated easily and
unnoticed - as they are only being some last line of defence - and though
be useless when they are really needed.
As another solution for this problem we (ehm, Panu) will backport a check
that will make noarch packages (both regular and noarch) fail to build if
they contain binaries (==colored files==the right thing to do even for
emulators, bioses, cross compilers, ...[1]). This additional check will be
in place before koji will be updated [2].
I'm a bit confused by this change. In my case, cobbler embeds a copy of
elilo because we want to be able to make an install server that runs on
x86/x86_64/other that also can install ia64/ppc/etc. Same for syslinux, etc
-- you may want to run an install server on ia64 that serves up x86/x86_64
content. Thus this content is stuff we need to /serve up/ rather than
content we need to run on that host. I /think/ that's why I'm CC'd on
this.
It would be great if those packages themselves (syslinux) could have noarch
portions, so any package could carry them as a payload.
The alternative is asking the user to find this content themselves, and right
now it's not possible to install elilo on a x86 system with yum, which makes
it quite confusing on them.
I would prefer that, at least, there was a way to bypass this binary file
check in the specfile for apps that have a legitimate reason to do it.
Yes, there's an override, precisely for these kind of reasons:
# Should binaries in noarch packages terminate a build?
%_binaries_in_noarch_packages_terminate_build 1
Turning that off in spec will make binaries in noarch packages a warning,
and it serves as documentation "yes we're doing something a bit special,
this is intentional" too.
- Panu -
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
