On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Michael DeHaan wrote:
Panu Matilainen wrote:
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 Even worse is that they will get outdated easily and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 -
Outstanding, do I have to if around which builds pass that flag/macro? (i.e.
would an EPEL 4 build (or an older rpmbuild) understand that?)
No need to work around it for older rpm versions: it's just another macro
definition, not a new spec keyword.
- Panu -
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
