On Sunday 29 July 2007 13:15:05 Robert Scheck wrote: > ever looked to /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros or /usr/lib/rpm/macros and asked > on the lists why this is not done by obvious reasons like backward compat > etc.? IIRC there already was such a discussion maybe half or a year ago... Iirc the problem for too many people with fixing/changing this only in fedora was, that they could not use the spec for other rpm based distributions without using the fedora macros. But when rpm itself gets fixed, there is no need fo these fedora macros. I hope I understood you correctly here, otherwise please explain what you meant. > FYI: Currently you can't do a "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in "%install" > automagically, because it breaks rebuilding of the kernel package, looks > somebody were to lazy to write something sane. I tried to enable this > feature on my rpm5.org installation, but IIRC there is at least one further > failure, too. I hope the kernel.spec can be fixed to work with this rm invocation, but in case this is not the case, then %install could be defined in such a way that %install --no-clean-buildroot would not clean the buildroot in %install. > Conclusion: Some Fedora Packaging Maintainers should write sane spec files > first, there are other packaging issues, too (e.g. orphaned directories, > dangling symlinks). Is there any technical reason why a package system cannot determine the ownership of directories by itself? Imho a package management system should make it as easy as possible to create a package, i.e. do as much as possible by itself. But what does this have to do with my improvement suggestions? And what insane spec files produce dangling symlinks? Is there a common mistake that creates them? Regards, Till
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
