Re: Fedora 34 Change: Enable spec file preprocessing (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 20:07, Dan Čermák <dan.cermak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> clime <clime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 22:04, James Szinger <jszinger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 14:05:40 -0500
> >> Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> 1. How does this affect users who download, maybe modify, and rebuild
> >> the SRPM?  Can they continue to use rpmbuid and mock as they have
> >> been?  Does the SRPM contain the pre-processed or post-processed spec
> >> file?
> >
> > They can use mock if the preprocessing will be enabled for the
> > respective chroots where it is enabled in Koji/Fedora.
> > They can't directly use rpmbuild for those packages that contain the
> > macros. But they can use rpkg/fedpkg to do the work.
> > Or preprocess spec first and then use rpmbuild. I am aware this is a
> > negative point of this change.
>
> This is a pretty big downside imho, as that means that building Fedora
> packages that use these new kinds of macros in other build systems will
> become impossible or at the very least, very, very difficult. There is
> quite some development going on in OBS (afaik e.g. Igor exported all
> Fedora Rust rpms to OBS for automated rebuilds) and enabling this
> preprocessing will make these packages FTBFS in OBS.
>

It depends on how the srpms are being built and if Fedora DistGit is
used directly as the source (as Adam has said also). If there is such
a possible breakage, we can look at fixing it in advance.

The tooling that implements preprocessing has minimal requirements
(git or git-core, bash, python, libgit2-devel, rpm-devel) so there
should be a very low barrier for entry for any environment that would
need it.

> Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to this proposal per-se. But as far
> as I recall, many people were pretty upset about modular packages being
> effectively only buildable in Fedora's infra and nowhere else. And I'd
> very much like not to repeat this.
>
> > While having an option to use rpmbuild directly to build srpm/rpm from
> > a dist-git repo is nice, I would say that fedpkg or mock are the main
> > interfaces to do this.
> > I know this answer won't satisfy everyone.
>
> Indeed. I think there *should* be at least a way how to produce a srpm
> that can be rebuild *without* having access to Koji, mock and fedpkg
> (ideally by our own infrastructure).

Well, that excludes lots of options already :). One can also use
preproc-rpmspec tool to get a rendered spec file (this is what mock
uses).

$ preproc-rpmspec pkg.spec.rpkg  # prints rendered spec to stdout,
pkg.spec.rpkg is a spec template

>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dan
_______________________________________________
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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux