On Wed Apr 17, 2024 at 8:18 PM IST, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:37:32AM +0000, Pratham Patel wrote: > > This addresses a minor nit where I want a `-devel` RPM package to be > > built when I build a binary RPM package with either `binrpm-pkg` > > or `rpm-pkg` target(s). > > > > Pratham Patel (2): > > kbuild: allow toggling the `with_devel` RPM macro > > docs: kbuild: document KBUILD_RPM_WITH_DEVEL > > > > Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.rst | 6 ++++++ > > scripts/Makefile.package | 5 ++++- > > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > -- > > 2.42.0 > > > > Hmmm, when I execute > > $ make -skj"$(nproc)" ARCH=x86_64 O=build mrproper defconfig binrpm-pkg > > I end up with > > $ ls -1 build/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64 > kernel-6.9.0_rc4_00031_g96fca68c4fbf-1.x86_64.rpm > kernel-devel-6.9.0_rc4_00031_g96fca68c4fbf-1.x86_64.rpm > kernel-headers-6.9.0_rc4_00031_g96fca68c4fbf-1.x86_64.rpm > > so it seems like this is already happening? > > Cheers, > Nathan Ah sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say the following: "This addresses a minor nit where I **don't** want a `-devel` RPM package to be built when I build a binary RPM package with either `binrpm-pkg` or `rpm-pkg` target(s)." That is because on ARM systems where I just need to quickly test the upstream defconfig, I don't really need the `-devel` package. Also, I see that in a hurry, I did the opposite of what I wanted in the patches. This went unnoticed since I had KBUILD_RPM_WITH_DEVEL=0 for me during testing. Sorry about that! I'll send a v2 fixing this stupid mistake. -- Pratham Patel
