On Sunday 29 July 2007 13:15:05 Robert Scheck wrote:
ever looked to /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros or /usr/lib/rpm/macros and
asked
on the lists why this is not done by obvious reasons like backward compat
etc.? IIRC there already was such a discussion maybe half or a year ago...
Iirc the problem for too many people with fixing/changing this only in fedora
was, that they could not use the spec for other rpm based distributions
without using the fedora macros. But when rpm itself gets fixed, there is no
need fo these fedora macros. I hope I understood you correctly here,
otherwise please explain what you meant.
FYI: Currently you can't do a "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT"
in "%install"
automagically, because it breaks rebuilding of the kernel package, looks
somebody were to lazy to write something sane. I tried to enable this
feature on my
rpm5.org installation, but IIRC there is at least one further
failure, too.
I hope the kernel.spec can be fixed to work with this rm invocation, but in
case this is not the case, then %install could be defined in such a way that
%install --no-clean-buildroot
would not clean the buildroot in %install.
Conclusion: Some Fedora Packaging Maintainers should write sane spec
files
first, there are other packaging issues, too (e.g. orphaned directories,
dangling symlinks).
Is there any technical reason why a package system cannot determine the
ownership of directories by itself? Imho a package management system should
make it as easy as possible to create a package, i.e. do as much as possible
by itself. But what does this have to do with my improvement suggestions?
And what insane spec files produce dangling symlinks? Is there a common
mistake that creates them?
Regards,
Till