On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 01:23:19PM +0100, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: > Hi Neal, > > > And the issue you're having that requires %setupargs is not a problem > > in RPM 4.14 > > I don't have an issue with %setupargs, I have an issue with requiring > packagers to change stuff in the spec header *and* > at %prep level, which is not in the same place of the spec. That is something > which has wasted huge quantities of man-hours in the past, even for > experienced packagers. > > The automation knows how the downloaded source archive will be named, what is > the structure of the source archive (the arguments that need passing to > %setup for this archive). The question is just how to pass that knowledge > from the automation macro call to %setup or %autosetup. > > Overriding %setup makes this work transparently with little risk. > If there is a strong opposition to that what is the best way to achieve the > same result? > > Using a specific setup-ish macro name like suggested by Panu is trivial > technically but has the huge drawback that it requires a specific call by the > packager (and many will forget it, at least as first). So it de-optimizes the > packager workflow. I'd frankly prefer to optimize the packager workflow over > helping tooling – that's what costs actual money and potential contributors.
I think it's OK. After all you already require a specific '%setup -n <arg>' invocation (<arg> in this case is different then the github default), and setting a few different fields in a specific order. So in practice people are going to go by the template provided in the docs, and whether it's %setup -n something or %forgesetup doesn't make much difference. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
