> Is there a reason we can't just push it back into `rpmbuild` itself directly?
> Like perhaps by exposing something via Lua that lets you programmatically
> define binary packages?
Yes, we could. I have thinking about this quite a lot. But this is much more
complicated and harder to use. Generating a piece of spec file is easy and can
be done from any programming language. This is a huge benefit if you want to do
language specific solutions as you have easy access to all the domain specific
tooling.
But there are a few use cases that will benefit from direct access to the
rpmbuild internals. Debuginfo being one of them. Otoh I dislike the fact that
the internal state of rpmbuild getting altered without an artefact that
documents that. Yes, this already is the case for debuginfo packages. But I
would rather have less of that than more.
--
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/1485#issuecomment-760837284
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
