Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894482
Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda <bkab...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bkab...@redhat.com
--- Comment #10 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda <bkab...@redhat.com> ---
Hey Troy,
the specfile really seems to be strange, to say the least.
Comments for the first condition that Vit has mentioned:
- %scl shouldn't actually be defined in the specfile, it should be left to
ruby193-build to be present in minimal buildroot.
- Defining %scl_prefix is wrong. If ruby193-build is in minimal buildroot, it
will draw in scl-utils-build and %scl_prefix will be defined. You really
shouldn't hack these things like that.
The another condition:
- Please don't do that. Again, that is supposed to be solved by those packages
being/not being present in the minimal buildroot. The general idea of SCLs is
that you can build the same SRPM and get SCL or non-SCL RPMs, based on the
buildroot you use. By hardcoding the rhel conditionals, you break this.
Some more comments:
- %{?scl:%scl_prefix} in Requires and BuildRequires can be shortened to
%{?scl_prefix}
- The two Requires without %{?scl:%scl_prefix} seem to be suspicious. I'd say
that if you build this for ruby193 SCL, this gem won't be able to use them, as
they won't be in GEM_PATH (because they're not SCL).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WmHZpiiDuK&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
