On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 21:23 +0300, Dmitry Butskoy wrote: > Oh, no... > > > > I've spent a little bit of time on the shuttle to/from work hacking on > > Makefile.common. The general idea is to remove the Release: and % > > changelog fields from spec files, > > And then I have to maintain two versions of the spec file -- one for > Fedora build system, other for: another distros, another Fedora-related > distros, local builds etc... In my experience, everyone has slightly forked versions of spec files because they mandate different macros, etc. I do in fact want to enable cross-distribution sharing of build scripts, but I see that as a separate, longer term project from improving Fedora's build process. I actually started translating some spec files into a new build system to solve other problems that Fedora has like rampant copy+paste of scriptlets, etc. You can see some examples of my thoughts here: A simple one: http://cdn.verbum.org/hotwire.py A lot more complex: http://cdn.verbum.org/hal.py The idea is that you'd compile that into a spec file - we're not talking about changing the binary formats in any way. But, that's for the future. While starting on that I realized that it made more sense to take an incremental approach of solving some of the more problematic spec issues. > Interesting... Perhaps you will propose the automated "Version:" > determined by the tarball? Or even tarball's URL? Actually, yes - that was one of the next steps =) > Actually, I never fill the cvs changelog. Only the spec's changelog. I don't blame you, because having two is very confusing. > For this, I will prefer to hack with "rpmbuild" at a separate place and > to control what is happening immediately. Well, we can make 'make local' do whatever it is you want - what is different? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
