Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Native support for separate build and source tree (aka vpath builds) (Discussion #2882)
Good point wrt multiple build directories :+1: While we have native support for these kind of multiple variants builds via `RemovePathPostfixes` (which isn't used by vim or python in fedora, curl does though), having separate build and buildroot directories could make that easier to use. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2882#discussioncomment-8367139 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] Native support for separate build and source tree (aka vpath builds) (Discussion #2882)
Yeah I was aware Fedora is doing cmake builds in a vpath, but that's quite a different thing from having rpm natively support it. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2882#discussioncomment-8346327 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] Native support for separate build and source tree (aka vpath builds) (Discussion #2882)
Fedora already has [`%{_vpath_builddir}`
macro](https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/blob/rawhide/f/macros.vpath)
for such purpose. And
[this](https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/c/cbe746e311d5dbfd9c6d42fdfc4147220c0ad791)
is how I migrated Ruby to out-of-source build using this macro.
However, there is also need for more then one build dir. AFAIK
[Python](https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3.12/blob/rawhide/f/python3.12.spec)
does two builds, one optimized and second with debug information.
[Vim](https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vim/blob/rawhide/f/vim.spec) does 3
different builds (and it would be probably better to use separate build dirs
for them).
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2882#discussioncomment-8346269
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
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Native support for separate build and source tree (aka vpath builds) (Discussion #2882)
rpmbuild traditionally builds in the same directory where it unpacks the
sources. Probably at least in part because in the nineties anything else was
considered fancy pants that few projects supported. Apart from hand-rolled
makefiles, these days the situation is almost the opposite: any sane build
system wants the build artifacts anywhere else but mixed in the source tree.
Rpm should (better) support that natively somehow.
Whatever we do has to remain compatible with the existing mass of specs out
there, so for traditional use it needs to be an opt-in thing, which kinda
defeats the purpose. But with [declarative
builds](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1087) we have a
sort of fresh start where it may well be possible to set default the other way
around, and have buildsystems support it from the start. Combine that with
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1087 will allow builds
completely outside the source directory, which has nice qualities like allow
building from a read-only source-tree. There would need to be an opt-in to
build in the source directory though, because that's the only thing some
projects still support.
Maybe this would be something like a new %setup switch that after source
preparation, creates and cd's to the *build* directory and sets that as the
%{buildsubdir}. There would need to be a separate %{sourcesubdir} then for the
unpackaged source, which in the traditional setup would be the same as
%{buildsubdir} as a kind of special case that can be easily detected. Any new
buildsystem macro sets would be encouraged to default to separate directories.
This doesn't actually require
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1087 either - until that
is in place the new setup directive could just use a subdirectory inside
(rather than outside) buildsubdir.
Thoughts, comments?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2882
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
