On 1/15/20 3:33 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 15. 01. 20 v 13:33 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
On 1/15/20 2:13 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 13. 01. 20 v 14:05 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
%changelog
%include changelog
+1
As I pointed out in
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/942, %include is
nasty because it breaks the stand-alone attribute of specs. There are
umphteen dupes and variants of bugs about systemd.spec's use of
%include breaking this and that use pattern that aren't systemd's
fault, it's just that %include isn't as useful as it initially seems.
Would it be helpful to open RPM upstream ticket to discuss when the
missing included file is problematic and whether there should be other
graceful variant of include? May be the %include should always behave
gracefully, because (S)RPM build is going to always fail due to missing
files specified by Source directive.
This was actually discussed upstream not too long ago, just can't find
the reference offhand.
Basically an %include can never be allowed to fail as it can contain
anything at all, including mandatory parts of the spec. In theory you
can have a spec consisting of nothing but one or more %include directives.
(S)RPM builds are not an issue, it's spec queries, in particular for
build-dependencies but also for other data. Rpm has special logic to
allow missing sources and patches for query purposes, because they're
only needed for building. Something changelog-specific could also safely
ignore the missing file as %changelog is always an optional part of the
spec.
- Panu -
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
