On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 13:43, Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/16/2012 09:23 PM, Greg Swift wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 13:21, Panu Matilainen<pmatilai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 04/16/2012 06:11 PM, Greg Swift wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Does no one have a comment on this? >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 13:52, Greg Swift<gregswift@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So... At least in RHEL5 you can build an RPM where the Source points >>>>> to a directory instead of an archive file (tar, etc), thus removing >>>>> the need for the %setup macro. Is this a feature or a "feature" (read >>>>> bug) ? >>> >>> >>> >>> Sounds like a "feature", certainly. Try building a src.rpm from such a >>> thing, it'll merrily include the empty source directory as a source (or >>> patch). >>> >> >> That is what I was thinking but wanted to gather input about it before >> filing a bug. > > > Yup. Note that while adding a sanity check for regular file does make sense, > it doesn't prevent anything but accidental abuse. Use of %setup or > Source/Patch is in no way required for any spec, and %prep, %build and > %install can technically do pretty much whatever they please - things pull > content from the internet, copy stuff from system or otherwise pre-existing > directories etc in any case. ahh the joys of flexibility ;) _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
