Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
We can't possibly allow diverting the low-level `%()` primitive to some alternative shell as that is documented to be `/bin/sh` and that's what all the other macros are expecting. If one macro starts expecting something else... it's not going to end well. -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-765405267___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
Closed #1334. -- 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/issues/1334#event-4238608422___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
For complicated macros beyond "grab the output of foo -l" scale, Lua is recommended. It's by far the fastest scripting language available in rpm context, no forks involved to invoke the interpreter or shell etc. -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-677184062___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
> if you write compatibly and avoid using any possible extensions there are You end up having to invoke forty-eleven other tools (awk, sed, grep, tr, etc.) to do what bash can do. :-( -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-676379342___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
Well, /bin/sh is by definition *the POSIX shell* - if you avoid using any possible extensions there are... (but yes of course accumulating eg bashism is creepishm easy :) -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-676329931___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
Fair enough on being able to invoke various interpreters. I don't have enough interest to lobby for that. But being able to define the posix shell that `%()` uses would be useful and make for more portable specfiles. -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-676293776___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
@Conan-Kudo, thanks for the pointers, I had the feeling this had been discussed in the past. -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-676224334___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
We don't want embedded Python now any more than we did back then. A generic way of grabbing output from a command without invoking the shell in between I might consider, but nothing that adds language specifics into rpm, when we're in the process of getting rid of them alltogether. And I'm dubious about the cost of shell invocation being prohibitive when talking in the context of Python, Perl and the like - the biggest cost is invoking the language itself. -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-676216140___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
@dmnks There were multiple pull requests to attempt to add `%{python:}` several
years ago, unfortunately they didn't go anywhere. If we want to add this
functionality, we should probably start from #190 (which was the last attempt
to do this).
--
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/issues/1334#issuecomment-676196608___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
Note that having a *compile-time* way of hardwiring the shell of rpm macro engine would be an entirely different thing. But that would mean abandoning popen() and doing all the lifting by ourselves, popen() is hardwired to /bin/sh. Doesn't seem worth it to me. -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-675879639___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
Making everything configurable is not such a hot idea, really. Making the shell macro configurable means you open up the possibility of anybody screwing up the core macro primitive. %() equals popen() which means system shell, whatever that is, and I believe that should be left alone. -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-675866905___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
Yeah, I deleted that comment after realizing I misunderstood @voxik's question, but thinking again, it really is not a bad idea at all! It would be easier than having to redefine `%_macroshell` (or whatever we'd call it) and also cleaner, as you say. It would also get rid of the problem with "how do we pass the script body into a non-shell-like interpreter" that I mentioned above. -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-675530398___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
I'm yet to understand if there are any security implications by allowing to redefine the shell in a macro, though. But we already allow that for building anyway, and building a spec file is no different from running a regular shell script after all (you should audit the spec file before doing so). -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-675505485___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
Oh, I think I misunderstood. As @brianjmurrell said above, any interpreter would work, yes :) -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-675500681___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
> This is not unlike [setting SHELL in > Makefiles](https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Choosing-the-Shell.html). +1 -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-675499466___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
@voxik That's an interesting idea. You could then do something like `%(ruby: ...)` or `%(python: ...)` or what have you. Sounds cool. Not sure about the impact of this in a broader sense, but I don't see any reason it couldn't be done. That said, doing something just because "we can" doesn't always translate well into the maintenance side of things :) But if there are real-life use cases that would be improved with this, I think we'd open for that. -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-675497790___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
@voxik I can't see why Ruby (or python, or awk, or any other interpreter) would not work. As for _supported_, that's not my call. But as you point out, this does allow the spec writer more flexibility in what interpreter their spec evaluates macros, but does require them to define the shell in their spec to get something other than the default `/bin/sh`. This is not unlike [setting SHELL in Makefiles](https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Choosing-the-Shell.html). -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-675493794___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
So will Ruby by supported as well? Not that I really care, but what starts simple might provoke questions like these. -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-675489249___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
Sure you can. It's worth noting that this RFE is mostly cosmetic; being able to redefine a macro shell would allow you to replace all the `%(/usr/bin/bash -c "...")` calls with `%(...)`, as well as avoid spawning a shell just to spawn another shell. -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-675484426___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
Can't you run `%(/usr/bin/bash)`? -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-675481660___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
So something like a `%_macroshell` would be a better idea, perhaps. But I'm not sure. I'll need to run a more comprehensive search in the code base first, to be able to make an educated guess :) -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-675476325___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
@pmatilai good point. That being said, @Conan-Kudo has pointed out that we do
in fact respect `%_buildshell` in other, non-build related areas as well. Doing
a quick grep reveals for example:
`macros.in:%__spec_prep_shell%{___build_shell}`
Still, that doesn't mean we should follow that trend, especially given that
macro processing really is a separate step in the whole spec building process.
Also, making `%()` suddenly use `%_buildshell` could cause unexpected things to
happen in spec file which already redefine it. For consistency's sake, on the
other hand, it would make sense to reuse it...
--
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/issues/1334#issuecomment-675472264___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
%_buildshell is for building, %() is macro engine builtin which has no place following rpmbuild -level macro definitions. -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-675453265___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with %() (#1334)
My understanding is that this should be tied to the `%_buildshell` macro already. -- 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/issues/1334#issuecomment-675450997___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define shell to use with $() (#1334)
It would be nice to be able to define which shell should be used with `%()` given that `/bin/sh` is not the same shell on all distros. Additionally having to write `$()` macros to the lowest common denominator is just ugly. It's much nicer to just make _bash_ a `BuildRequires:` and be able to write bashisms in`%$()`. Particularly given that most(?) distros do use bash for `/bin/sh` and only a few outliers don't. -- 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/issues/1334___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
