Hi, During review of a package I submitted [1], the reviewer asked me to move running an `ant` script from %prep to %build. However, I feel that step belongs in %prep for two reasons: 1. It's a preparatory step for the Python build that follows The `ant` job provides codec mappings (from Java Charsets), which are subsequently used in the Python package. The process is described in the CodecMapper README [2]. 2. It would be (needlessly?) more complicated to do that in %build I need to prep the sources and move stuff around for the Python package to live at the top level, before calling `%pyproject_buildrequires`, which is done before %build. The actual Python package, from which the PyPI sdist and wheel are produced lives in a sub directory of the CodecMapper repository [3]. Unfortunately, the PyPI sdist is incomplete. That's why I'm using the GitHub sources. I'd appreciate any guidance with regards to permissibility and/or alternative approaches.

On 10/30/23 07:09, Fabio Valentini wrote: > Usually, steps like calling `%configure` or `%meson` SHOULD (or must?)

> happen in %build, not in `prep`. However, this is kind of a special > case, where you need to prepare the Python package in order to run > `%pyproject_buildrequires`, so by definition, it will need to happen > in `%prep`. I don't really see a way around that, other than ... not > using dynamically generated BuildRequires. > > Fabio To add to that, one of the main reasons for running things like %configure or %meson in %build rather than %prep is to minimize the number of dependencies for building the source RPM. It’s inconvenient to have to install a long list of BuildRequires (on the host system rather than just the build chroot) in order to be able to run “fedpkg srpm”. However, I agree that anything that affects the generated BuildRequires certainly must be run in %prep. I personally think that the disadvantages of doing without generated BuildRequires are generally worse than the disadvantages of having significant dependencies in %prep, although I suppose this is open to debate. _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproje... Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

On pondělí 30. října 2023 13:30:56 CET Ben Beasley wrote: > On 10/30/23 07:09, Fabio Valentini wrote: >> Usually, steps like calling `%configure` or `%meson` SHOULD (or must?) >> happen in %build, not in `prep`. However, this is kind of a special >> case, where you need to prepare the Python package in order to run >> `%pyproject_buildrequires`, so by definition, it will need to happen >> in `%prep`. I don't really see a way around that, other than ... not >> using dynamically generated BuildRequires. >> >> Fabio > > To add to that, one of the main reasons for running things like > %configure or %meson in %build rather than %prep is to minimize the > number of dependencies for building the source RPM. It’s inconvenient to > have to install a long list of BuildRequires (on the host system rather > than just the build chroot) in order to be able to run “fedpkg srpm”. This is a confusing argument. You don't need to run %prep to generate SRPM. Pavel > However, I agree that anything that affects the generated BuildRequires > certainly must be run in %prep. I personally think that the > disadvantages of doing without generated BuildRequires are generally > worse than the disadvantages of having significant dependencies in > %prep, although I suppose this is open to debate.

> During review of a package I submitted [1], the reviewer asked me to > move running an `ant` script from %prep to %build. This is correct IMHO , if you run `fedpkg prep` on directory where you heave the spec file of the package (in a git-dist), you wont be able to get "Local test rpmbuild prep" if you haven't ant installed on the system.

for exemplify : fedpkg clone eclipse-swt cd eclipse-swt fedpkg prep

On 11/6/23 02:00, Sandro wrote: > On 05-11-2023 16:00, Sérgio Basto wrote: >>> During review of a package I submitted [1], the reviewer asked me to >>> move running an `ant` script from %prep to %build. >> This is correct IMHO , >> >> if you run `fedpkg prep` on directory where you heave the spec file of >> the package (in a git-dist), you wont be able to get "Local test >> rpmbuild prep" if you haven't ant installed on the system. > > And why is that an issue I should be concerned about? > > It's an honest question. When running the full build with `fedpkg > mockbuild`, all BRs from the spec file will be installed first, before > %prep is executed. > >> for exemplify : >> fedpkg clone eclipse-swt >> cd eclipse-swt >> fedpkg prep > > I know plenty of Python packages that need to apply some git foo in > %prep. These would also fail the exercise if git-core were not > installed on the host system. > > I'm not sure why `fedpkg prep` just fails, while `fedpkg install` will > happily tell you what dependencies are missing. The idea is that %prep only unpacks (which is useful to looking at the sources) so it doesn't need dependencies beyond those of rpmbuild itself. Once upon a time rpm was changed to ignore buildrequires for prep with this rationale, but it's a flawed one: technically, packages are free to use whatever tooling they need to do what they need in %prep as much as any other section. And to do that they'd must be able to express those dependencies.