On Aug 29, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Matthew Dawkins wrote:

> Honestly, this is kinda arrogant reply. Why deem what is appropriate based on 
> what Fedora does? It seems that Fedora allows poor pkging if you have to fix 
> explicit suffixes with "*".
> 

Having dealt with various compression issues to support "Have it your own way!"
(including carrying xz internal) as well as brp-foo mysteriously unportable 
scripts,
well yes, perhaps arrogant.

The flaw is that various distro policies (like whether gz/bz2/xz man pages) are
intrinsically part of distro build systems, not rpm.

RPM has _ALWAYS_ supported the ability to do "Have it your own way!"
configuration.

The problem with continuing to carry scripts that work for all possible 
compressions
solves no real world problem: every distro chooses/uses one compression and rpm
is forced to a union of all possible choices.

The better solution is to write one script per-compressor and simplify all this 
complexity.

Eliminating brp-compress.sh entirely and just compressing on build system when 
reading/adding into
payload is less code and likely more robust.

73 de Jeff

> What happened to have it your own way?
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Jeffrey Johnson <n3...@me.com> wrote:
> No interest because already there are huge amounts
> of breakage making *.spec files tied to per-distro choices
> of what compressor to invoke.
> 
> I have to fix issues like this in nearly every Fedora package I look
> at, to replace explicit suffixes with a glob in %files manifests.
> 
> Maintain outside of rpm as you wish: what compression is chosen
> by various/sundry distros isn't a solvable problem imho.
> 
> 73 de Jeff
> 
> On Aug 26, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
> 
> > This patch adds support for compressing man & info pages with xz or lzma 
> > compression.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Per Øyvind
> > <rpm-5.4.10-update-and-use-brp-compress.patch>
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> RPM Package Manager                                    http://rpm5.org
> Developer Communication List                        rpm-devel@rpm5.org
> 

Reply via email to