Le 2020-03-03 07:03, clime a écrit :
Actually, that wouldn't work because prefix needs to be static, not dependent on rpm macros
For myself, I would oppose any rpm release process that would not take core rpm mecanisms like macros into account.
Recording builds in changelogs without checking they actually happened is bad engineering.
Simulating rpm behaviour without performing actual spec evaluation in rpm, is also bad engineering. Especially when you know your simulation is horribly simplistic and approximative.
“Who cares if results match most of the time” is terrible workload optimization. You’ll make packagers waste far more time fixing the cases where automation guessed wrong, than you will win when it guesses right. Basic 80/20 rule, the 20% hard cases cost more than the 80% easy cases. Taking care of the 80% easy cases while making the 20% hard cases harder (due to automation mistakes) is not a good deal at all.
Please work on approaches which are reliable by default. Reliability is hard even when you aim for it. When you don’t, it’s not attainable at all.
Reagrds, -- Nicolas Mailhot _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
