Dne 7.1.2016 v 17:04 Orion Poplawski napsal(a):
> 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.
Do you have any convincing examples of such .spec files at hand? I am
curious.
Vít
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
