ffesti commented on this pull request.
> @@ -8,13 +8,99 @@
#include "build/rpmbuild_internal.h"
#include "debug.h"
+static int addLinesFromFile(rpmSpec spec, const char * const fn, rpmTagVal tag)
+{
+ int nlines = 0;
+ int flags = STRIP_COMMENTS | STRIP_TRAILINGSPACE;
+ ARGV_t argv = NULL;
+
+ int terminate = rpmExpandNumeric(tag == RPMTAG_SOURCE
+ ? "%{?_empty_sourcelist_terminate_build}"
+ : "%{?_empyy_patchlist_terminate_build}");
I would argue the opposite: Why would they not be allowed to be empty.
Especially the patches file. Think of the patch list being generated
automatically from a git repository. After a rebase the patch list may be
empty. Why require the spec file to be adjusted in this case instead of just
working?
Sources may be a bit different as one would expect that the packagers have a
tighter look on them. But one could still imagine some add-on stuff like docs
or test scripts that could be added dynamically and might or might not be there.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1043#discussion_r374605736_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
