https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242859
--- Comment #7 from Jeremy Newton <[email protected]> --- > So this is more about keeping the install clean. subpackaging is fine, which > is the controlling one ? Yes of course, they should be separate packages for sure. I was thinking have rocm-rpm-macros be the controling package, since it's the name you gave it in github. > Having a central rocm_release means all of the packages could be updated at > the same time without touching every package's spec file. if we do not want > to do that, lets just remove them from the macros.rocm My gut says it's little value added, as there will always be updates to the spec file due to fedora rebuilds. Recently I updated packages to 5.7 and had to flip all the release fields from 2 to 1. We could avoid churn by adding autorelease to all the spec files, but I think you still need to make a commit for it to work correctly. I also am a bit concerned that the macro might cause difficulties with reproducible builds. E.g/ if I explicitly wanted to rebuild rocblas from 5.6 against 5.7 to debug an issue, it might be less straightforward having the spec file depend on these macros. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242859 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202242859%23c7 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
