2011/3/24 Jeff Johnson <n3...@mac.com>:
>
> On Mar 23, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
>
>> 2011/3/23 Jeff Johnson <n3...@mac.com>:
>>>
>>> On Mar 23, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, but this isn't run unless %clean exists in the spec file..
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not true (from 4+ year old memory). But I've forgot.
>> Well, your memory seems to be wrong then.. ;)
>
> Maybe. Do you remember code you wrote 4 years ago?
>
>> This is the reason why I've not yet ripped out %clean from
>> any spec files yet in cooker...
>
> Under #ifdef RPM_VENDOR_MANDRIVA until I get a chance to
> reload my neurons please.
>
>>>
>>> PART_CLEAN (because its compiled in) is my major objection.
>>> I also see no need for overrides and all the usual stuff
>>> hardwired into rpmbuild. The crap will break endlessly
>>> and there's not much reason (imho) or rpmbuild to undertake
>>> rm -rf /some/path
>>> because there's risk (when macros are involved) of crafting
>>> a malicious *.spec that can/will achieve:
>>> rm -rf ~
>>> The start of avoiding that is to rip %clean, continues through
>>> making %__spec_clean_body RDONLY, and finishes up (after the
>>> usual 5 years of silly bikeshed discussion) in hardwiring
>>> a standard sensible default operation.
>> Yes, but ripping out %clean would prevent %__spec_clean_body from
>> being run, which this change fixed.
>
> Are you prepared to rip out %clean everywhere in Mandriva *.spec?
> Go for it! You do have 79Gb of subversion with thousands
> of packages and a systemd deployment and ... I'm
> not at all sure how/why ripping %clean becomes important
> after a beta release.
No, I'm not saying that I'm even planning on actively ripping out %clean
everywhere, but I do have started ripping out other things like
%defattr, BuildRoot: etc. every now and then.
I'm just arguing that's why I haven't ripped it out from any package anywhere
at all yet because of this.
>
> It would help if you stated your intent(s) first. I'm real tired
> about being blind sided and having to reactively argue
> about whether I have Alzheimers's or not. Its
> not up to my memory ...
I thought my intent was obvious, I was fixing a behaviour that we both
seem to agree on that would not be the desired behaviour, right?
ie. a bug fix..
>
> The change was discussed and published and vetted and was acceptible
> at the time. Of course the bikeshed fussed "legacy compatible"
> for weeks ... whatever.
Then I don't get the issue, the correct behaviour should be the following:
no %clean in spec == %__spec_clean_body is executed at end of build
right?
>
>>>
>>> Do you _REALLY_ need a tool to clean up *everything* with luser
>>> overrides?
>>>
>>> From memory:
>>> Look for Michael Jennings description of %clean implemented
>>> in rpm-4.4.7 way back when. Might be on the old
>>> rpm-devel list at dulug.duke.edu too.
>>
>
> I will look for you. todo++.
>
> 73 de Jeff
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Per Øyvind
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org
>> Developer Communication List rpm-devel@rpm5.org
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org
> Developer Communication List rpm-devel@rpm5.org
>
______________________________________________________________________
RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org
Developer Communication List rpm-devel@rpm5.org
