On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 18:16 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 05:55:03PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > - Doesn't work in your several %arch's case. > > I didn't want to obfuscate it, better use sane and common defaults. Well, your %buildroot isn't sane. It clashes and breaks on %arch > The argument about arch was relative and not absolute anyway: "arch is > more important than id, therefor if we skip arch, we need to skip id". That's your argumentation. Mine is: The current build root supports id, but breaks on arch (== defect of the recommendation) => We should fix this. > But the scheme above even takes care of your multiuser- > build-the-same-package-corner-case, so at least you have no reason not > to be happy. == no substantial progress on features in comparison to the current FE recommendation. > > - Do %name, %version, %release always expand correctly (Rpm suffers from > > a bug, where at least %name or %version (I don't recall exactly) > > occasionally is not being expanded correctly)? > > URL? Sorry, none. > I've never seen a macro fail using name/version and I use them > quite a lot. I once encountered it when simultaneously building several packages from several source packages in one rpm.spec. It had been a spec similar to this Name: xxx Version: 1 Release: 0 .. Source0: xxx-1.tar.gz Source1: yyy-2.tar.gz ... %package -n yyy Name: yyy Version: 2 .. In this case, the order of rpm sections (%build, %install etc.) is of essential importance. Depending on where they are located, %version or %name expands to either xxx or yyy rsp. 1 or 2. Unfortunately I don't have an example at hand to reproduce it. Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
