Hi,
Thanks for the replying, guys.
Summary: what is proposed in https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/509 should be IMO refused.
May be we should go with the "%bcond_with bootstrap" ... I might update the draft from [1] or prepare different version for FPC.
In my opinion, though we may use "%bcond_with bootstrap" or may use _with_bootstrap, at least below text on the current document is wrong in the point of the meaning, and it should be modified.
``` %{!?_with_bootstrap: %global bootstrap 1} ```
At least below proposal is better than current situation.
``` %{?_with_bootstrap: %global bootstrap 1} ```
By the way, there is still no Assignee for below issue page. Is there how to ask packaging committee guys to assign, and proceed it? Do you know when is the document modified? https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/684
Thanks.
Jun
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vít Ondruch" vondruch@redhat.com To: packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 10:01:19 AM Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Fixing wrong Bootstrapping part in Guidelines
Dne 9.5.2017 v 09:58 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 5.5.2017 v 16:50 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 5.5.2017 v 16:03 Tomasz Kłoczko napsal(a):
- rpm supports more than 10 years %bconds which simplifies defining
and using conditionally activated parts of procedures implemented in spec files. So above quoted line should be never used and only %bcond declaration should be:
%bcond_with boostrap # disable bootstrap by default
(yes .. "%bcond_with foo" disables and "%bcond_without foo" enables foo) Examples how to use macros defined by %bcond:
%if %{with boostrap} BuidRequires: foo %endif
or:
%{?with_bootstrap:BuildRequires: foo}
%build %configure \ --%{?with_bootstrap:en}%{?!with_bootstrap:dis}able-bootstrap \ --<other switches>
or:
%build %configure \ --with%{!?with_boostrap:out}-bootstrap \ --<other switches> or --with-bootstrap%{!?with_boostrap:=off}
%files %{?with_boostrap:%{_bindir>/foo} %{!?with_boostrap:%{_bindir>/bar}
None of the %post/%postun/%pre/%preun/%posttrans* scripts needs to be surrounded by %ifing as exact %files section looks like:
%if %{with boostrap} $files boostrap <%files list> %endif
The same is about "%package boostrap" and all other boostrap subpackage fields. They don't need for example bootstrap additional %ifing as well.
(Above examples are for GNU auotools and it is easy to guess how this can be adapted for other build frameworks)
Sometimes during during bootstrap may be necessary to disable %check
%check %{?with_boostrap:%{__make} check}
no other logic disabling %check is needed because (again) whatever is possible to fire in %check if it is only possible to use should be *enabled* by default.
Summary: what is proposed in https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/509 should be IMO refused.
May be we should go with the "%bcond_with bootstrap" ... I might update the draft from [1] or prepare different version for FPC.
Thinking about this over the weekend, I think we should keep setting the %boostrap macro and use the %if conditions where necessary. The main advantage of the %bootstrap macro is that you can set it externally. Let me give an example.
IOW, having the %bootstrap macro standardized is the most important thing. If we can set it using --with=bootstrap, that is nice addition, but not the most important thing.
Vít
You want to run initial build of your distribution in build system (Koji). To enable bootstrapping of all packages, it is enough to have some package which contains this file:
$ cat %{_rpmconfigdir}/macros.d/macros.bootstrap %bootstrap 1Once the buildroot is configured to contain such package, all the subsequent builds will have this macro defined and hence the packages will run their bootstrap build. This way, you can boostrap the distribution, although the build system (Koji) does not support anything like "--with=bootstrap".
If there is way to use --with=boostrap flag (either rpmbuild or mock supports it), you can conventionally use it.
Actually, the guidelines should probably be extended. The packages build using "boostrap" macro should be marked, i.e. there should be "Provides: bootstrap_build()" or something similar to be able to find such packages later.
Vít _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
packaging mailing list -- packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org