On 01/07/2016 05:57 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 7.1.2016 v 11:17 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a):
>>>>>>> "VO" == Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> VO> What are these special macros you need to generate SRPM? There
>> VO> shouldn't be any IMO.
>>
>> It's not uncommon for a spec to be syntactically invalid if a macro is
>> not defined, which prevents SRPM generation. Rather than including line
>> noise boilerplate in every spec to conditionally define them to nonsense
>> values, or simply defining them there, the macros are added to the
>> buildroot.
>>
>> If this were done more consistently, we could actually get rid of a
>> significant amount of line noise.
>>
>> - J<
>
> You can get rid of these macros for SRPM build typically just by
> replacing %{my_macro} by %{?my_macro}, i.e. adding just single question
> mark. If you follow this practice, we could get rid of not just
> significant amount of lines but also of significant amount of
> -srpm-macros packages and all the noise you now requires just to
> generate SRPM. Don't forget, that the macros are lazy evaluated, so you
> don't have to have every possible macro defined when building SRPM.
>
>
> Vít
Not if the macro is evaluated for a BuildRequires line or
Exclude/ExclusiveArch, then the resulting src.rpm is incorrect. But for other
cases you are correct.
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion@xxxxxxxx
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
