On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 15:45, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>>>> "IU" == Iñaki Ucar <iucar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > IU> - Version: As you already found out, there are many version formats > IU> allowed. > > But it's easy to work from Version: in the normal case and simply allow > the CRAN version to be specified separately, as I showed in the R-uuid > sample. If it's rather more common that updating the version in two > places is a burden, we can certainly look at other ways to do it. Your example is fine. I was, again, just completing the picture to show that your solution is enough to treat every case. > IU> - Arch, Requires, BuildRequires, libdir/datadir: As Elliott pointed > IU> out already, archful packages can be detected just by looking into > IU> the DESCRIPTION file, by checking whether the NeedsCompilation flag > IU> exists. > > As nim pointed out in a previous message, it's "not possible" to make > use of this information for many things as long as DESCRIPTION is within > the tarball, because unpacking does not happen until well after specfile > parsing (and thus macro expansion) has happened. (Technically all > things are possible but there isn't too much you can do with a source > file before it's even been downloaded, and we certainly have to be able > to parse the spec before that point.) > > There are of course some things you can do. The %prep and %install > scriptlets, for example, are just shell code which can be inserted by > macros but which actually runs much later. So you can use that > information to figure out how to build, and what files to install. But > you can't look in there to add BuildArch: noarch or add build > dependencies because those have to be done much earlier. > > So that's why I just provided separate macros for the archful and noarch > cases. I see. Anyway, I suppose that it's healthy to preserve some manual intervention in these sections. > IU> - %prep, %build, %install, %check, %files: These can be automated > IU> too. > > Well, look at the two examples I provided. The %files list isn't > completely consistent (one package has COPYING and the other doesn't) > but the test macro file I provided conditionalizes this properly. >From "Writing R Extensions": "Whereas you should feel free to include a license file in your source distribution, please do not arrange to install yet another copy of the GNU COPYING or COPYING.LIB files but refer to the copies on https://www.R-project.org/Licenses/ and included in the R distribution (in directory share/licenses)". Therefore, that file shouldn't be there and should be removed (actually, it's funny because uuid's maintainer is a member of R-Core, and we usually get our submissions to CRAN rejected due to smaller details ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). > IU> I'm not familiar at all with RPM macros, but I can help with all > IU> these details. > > So then perhaps have a look at those examples I provided and see how > they would actually work in real life on more than the two specs I > converted. If I get time today I'll fill things in for the noarch > package case. You can count on that. I'll try to identify corner cases to see how your macros behave in such packages and report back as time permits. > > - J< -- Iñaki Ucar _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
