Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Package specific prep/build/... sections (Discussion #2849)
Just FTR, this is related to the #2847. What I am possibly about to do is to package Ruby with a few gems into single binary RPM. So my high level idea is to essentially "join" Ruby .spec file with the .spec files of the gems. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2849#discussioncomment-8368400 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Package specific prep/build/... sections (Discussion #2849)
> Append/prepend is still operating on exactly one script of a type. Maybe it could stay like that in practice, if you are talking about the underlying bash script (which to me is just implementation detail I deliberately ignore) > With append/prepend, you can place sub-package specific build scriptlet > sections into their own sections though, so you can have a single %if/%endif > around it all. Possibly, while I can't really imagine it lacking real experience. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2849#discussioncomment-8368363 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Package specific prep/build/... sections (Discussion #2849)
Append/prepend is still operating on exactly one script of a type. Adding support for multiple scripts for each step would be a huge amount of work for very little benefit, I don't see that happening. With append/prepend, you can place sub-package specific build scriptlet sections into their own sections though, so you can have a single %if/%endif around it all. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2849#discussioncomment-8366986 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Package specific prep/build/... sections (Discussion #2849)
At this stage, I don't want to really constrain myself by `Source` being attached to subpackage or not. But if there is space for [append / prepend scriptlets](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2728), then I don't see the package specific scriptlets to being way off. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2849#discussioncomment-8318968 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Package specific prep/build/... sections (Discussion #2849)
Well, sub package definitions are normal preambles that can contain everything the main preamble can. But that doesn't mean those (e.g. `Source:`) directives are somehow attached to that sub package. Global directives are global no matter where they are. The build scripts also are global. Attaching them to sub packages does not really make sense. While sub packages already exist as an internal structure right after the spec file is parsed they are not looked at after the build scripts are run. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2849#discussioncomment-8317836 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
