On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:40:43 -0400, Tom wrote:
> Macro forms of system executables (such as %{__rm}) should not be used
> except when there is a need to allow the location of those executables
> to be configurable.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros
> rm should be used in preference to %{__rm}, but %{__python} is acceptable.
Hmmm... where's the rationale? The "why?"s aren't answered. One truth
about macro-fied commands is that typically the packagers don't ensure
consistency throughout the entire build process. For example, "configure"
scripts and Makefiles pick up their own commands based on $PATH (or other
techniques) or hardcode plain path-less commands in at least a few
files. Nothing ensures that the value of %__rm and similar macros are
passed on to the build framework. Using %__python is not acceptable either
in that case. Unless a redefinition of %__python makes sure that nothing
else than the expanded value is used throughout the entire build process
*and* also inside RPM scriptlets.
If a packager sees "a need to allow the location of those executables
to be configurable", the spec file ought to (or MUST?) give an explanation
in a comment. Only that helps with fighting macro-madness.
--
$ rpm --eval %__ln_s
ln -s
$ rpm --eval %__ln
%__ln
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
