On 27. 02. 20 11:57, clime wrote:
If i understand correctly, this would rely on the locally undefined
%{baserelease} macro, which is later provided auto-magically by the
build system. Should this macro be populated also locally if not
defined?
Yes, by fedpkg. Now should the specs be buildable standalone? Possibly by
defining baserelease_default value in some SRPM macro package.
So the specs would have:
Release: beta.2.%{dynamic_release}
And %{dynamic_release} would be defined as:
%{?_buildsystem_dynamic_release}%{?!_buildsystem_dynamic_release:1}
And fedpkg would populate %_buildsystem_dynamic_release as it does with %fedora
etc.
We would just need to teach bumpspec (or more generally releng rebuild scripts)
to not try to manually bump releases with %{dynamic_release}.
I already mentioned it earlier in this thread but I think the use of
bare rpm macro is problematic because they either need to have git
context (metadata) around to evaluate or they would even need to do
remote network requests. Do you disagree?
No. I agree.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
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
