On Thu, 2020-02-27 at 15:10 +0100, clime wrote:
> Another thing to consider is whether we want a transparent build
> system where all the description of what will happen when a spec file
> is sent to it is included in the specfile itself or whether we want
But we don't have that today: think of macros defined externally to the
SPEC file and RPM which we use, think of "underspecified" build
dependencies where what happens to be available and fulfil the BRs will
be used and ultimately influence how the package is built. What happens
when you build a package is already dependent on outside sources.
> some auto-magic where e.g. 'Release' field or %changelog are
> automatically inserted when missing (something like that is
> impossible
> right now due to rpm constraints but just to make a point).
Again, this is opt-in. And the way this will be made opt-in is that
people who want to use the feature use a macro, e.g.
"%automatic_release", so that it is clear that some value will be
filled in there. The idea isn't to have gutted spec files that don't
build anywhere else than in our build system, one fixed requirement is
that local builds using fedpkg or rpmbuild must continue to work.
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to
Software Engineer purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither
Red Hat Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: D0C1 1576 CDA6 5B6E BBAE 95B2 7D53 7FCA E9F6 395D
old: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
