>>>>> "TO" == Tomas Orsava <tors...@redhat.com> writes:
TO> That looks incredible! Why didn't it see the light of day? Time TO> constraints or some technical issues? Well, it sort of fell by the wayside as I got involved with other things. I've learned a lot about RPM internals since then and I know I really should get back to it. So many things higher up in the (incredibly huge) queue. TO> Maybe it could be revived? Technically it isn't dead; I just haven't worked on it in a (long) while. Basically I tried to come up with the ideal spec file and worked backwards from that. It's still not going to work for every package, and it still isn't remotely as nice as simply not using an RPM spec at all (and just generating one from metadata) but I think it's at least a start. Also, it does horrible, horrible things behind the scenes because RPM just doesn't give us a couple of needed bits. I filed a ticket with RPM upstream to try and have it do that but no luck. But the actual macros behind the scenes are very well commented so at least things should be moderately obvious. Anyway, I'll try to have another look at it at some point. I need to extract the debug scaffolding and such and put that into Fedora separately so that I can avoid rewriting it all the time. - J< _______________________________________________ python-devel mailing list python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
