On 7/26/06, Toshio Kuratomi <toshio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 12:04 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > On 7/25/06, Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 18:26 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > > Also Ville insists on their being a %build section for an unknown > > > reason. > > > > I did provide a reason, you seem to choose to ignore it. > > Well you keep referencing a bug number with your argument and the > comments made in the bug you refer to seem to suggest my point of view > rather than yours. Basically the bug reporter simply did not know > what he was doing. So this bug that you refer to basically > invalidates your claim that there is a problem with not adding %build. > So you provide some reason, then invalidate this reason with a bug > number and therefore you provide an unknown or null or void or > canceled out reason. Kind of like when matter collides with > anti-matter... Bug#192422 is showing that specs without %build can trigger unexpected behaviour. The bug reporter did know what he was doing, he just didn't know that rpm had a bug in it that prevented it from working as expected.
No, bug #192422 is showing that without %build a debuginfo package will not be built. This is totally _expected_ behavior. See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192422#c11
So it's better to anticipate that there might be other unexpected things when shipping without %build (either there now or added in the future when the rpm maintainer decides: debuginfos do it this way, I might as well make feature X do it that way as well) rather than letting everything work for the trivial cases we're dealing with now and then suddenly expose another bug somewhere down the road.
You are working off the false premise that there is unexpected behavior in rpm. I am very highly doubtful that the rpm source code is so pathetically bad that no body really knows what might happen when certain things are added or removed from spec files. LOL. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
