Dne 7.1.2016 v 17:59 Orion Poplawski
napsal(a):
On 01/07/2016 09:41 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: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. VítNot 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.http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/python3-setuptools.git/tree/python3-setuptools.spec?h=epel7 python3_pkgversion needs to be defined. I can't see reason, why there shouldn't be:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/nodejs.git/tree/nodejs.spec nodejs_arches needs to be defined. ExclusiveArch for building SRPM? Neither this makes sense. It might just fail a bit faster in Koji, but it is not worth of some special macro package IMO. Vít |
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx