On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:07 AM Dan Čermák <dan.cermak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 11:48 PM Dan Čermák
> <dan.cermak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> An RPM macro to indicate the major clang version would be a much
> cleaner solution.
Agreed here.
You could also try to use the symlink in %{_libdir}/clang/$MAJOR_VERSION [1]
to require the major version of clang at build time, but not sure if
that's what you want either.
Oh, that part's actually easy, as I've since noticed that recent clang builds include a Provides for "clang(major) = 12" (or 11, etc...), which means if I *have* the major version number, I can make the package depend on that major version. It's just getting the number that's the trick. The "clang(major)" provides does not, near as I can figure, do me any good on that front.
Querying RPM counts as a clever answer to my first question, though, for sure. Not quite as convenient as a /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/clang.macros file that exports a %{clang_major_version} RPM variable, but workable enough when I'm not being lazy, and certainly "good enough" until there's an rpm-macros-clang package, at least. Thanks!
_______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
