On 2018-02-02 17:52, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"PM" == Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
PM> Yes spectool was recommended by somebody else already, but
PM> ultimately only rpm itself can truly parse a spec, spectool is just
PM> a rough approximation (but usually does work in the more common
PM> cases, yes)
Actually the current spectool uses rpm to parse the spec (as it calls
rpmbuild -bp with a number of additional options). It would probably be
simpler if it called rpmspec -P as my python rewrite of it from years
ago did, but right now it really should just work for everything that
rpm can parse. And at least it seems to be able to handle expansions of
significant complexity without problems.
It currently doesn't work for everything that rpm can parse. For an
example, see nasm [0].
msimacek ~/rpms/nasm (master) $ /usr/bin/spectool --debug -g nasm.spec
temp dir: /tmp/spectool_TU_klSJmj3
temp spec filename: /tmp/spectool_TU_klSJmj3/spec_hSY36atjuD
stderr filename: /tmp/spectool_TU_klSJmj3/stderr_2MEZDwuZkx
msimacek ~/rpms/nasm (master) $ cat
/tmp/spectool_TU_klSJmj3/stderr_2MEZDwuZkx
error: line 68: Unclosed %if
So, I'd definitely appreciate if your rewrite went upstream.
[0] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nasm/blob/master/f/nasm.spec
Michael
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
