ok, so it depends on your point of view, that's clear. For downstream
"repackagers" there's clearly internal macro "mangling" and perhaps build
environment differences specifically due to that, and while that's clearly a
very important use case it's not the same as mine. It may be that some of this
behaviour needs to be optional, but again if the current rpm build process does
not allow you to complete a rebuild correctly or it requires a large amount of
investigation to work out how to achieve the end goal of reproducibly building
packages then to some extent I think it's fragile.
The link you provide just goes to show how fragile the current process is if
you look at it in any detail, even if general building it seems to work. I
suspect/know that things are more complex now than they were in the initial rpm
days.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2590#issuecomment-1667718170
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2590/1667718...@github.com>
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
