On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > > > > The current set of options which can be "short-circuit"'ed are fine. > > However, from a security perspective, I would be very bothered by an > > easy method of creating binary rpms which could not be rebuilt by the > > source rpm. > > Again: nobody wants to distribute the binary RPMs. > > This for hacking/debugging only. > > Say that I'm trying to chase down a kernel bug. I have the kernel source > rpm unpacked and compiled in BUILD. > > I'd like to be able to play with the kernel source, make small changes, and > be able to quickly build installable kernel RPMs for testing purposes, > instead of waiting two fscking hours to rebuild the whole bloody mess from > scratch all because of a one or a two-line change. For debugging purposes it's possible to achieve this with a dirty little specfile hack, at least if your spec isn't full of %if's in which case you might get into trouble because of rpm's problems in handling nested %if's. - Panu -
