On 28/03/19 08:17 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 21:27, Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
On 26/03/19 11:40 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 08:57, Jonathan Wakely
>wrote:
>[..]
>
>> >What does this 42 means in this case? It means that during whole gcc
build
>>
On 3/28/19 4:17 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
>Really?
>Really do you want me to answer on the question "why there is no
any sense
>repeat 42 times some tests on the source code configuration
stage?" ??
Yes, because you repeatedly make the mistake of assuming that one
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 21:27, Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
> On 26/03/19 11:40 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> >On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 08:57, Jonathan Wakely
> >wrote:
> >[..]
> >
> >> >What does this 42 means in this case? It means that during whole gcc
> build
> >> >are repeated 42 times some subset
On 26/03/19 11:40 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 08:57, Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
[..]
>What does this 42 means in this case? It means that during whole gcc build
>are repeated 42 times some subset of *autoconf tests*. How it was possible
>to loose that?!? 樂
>gcc is quite
Le 2019-03-27 16:23, Nico Kadel-Garcia a écrit :
That wasn't me. I was just asking about whether using pushd and popd
in a .spec file made sense. I think it does not, it's safer to specify
the target directory explicitly rather than rely on these tools.
The way rpm packaging works, you
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 3:32 AM Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
>
> Le 2019-03-27 03:46, Nico Kadel-Garcia a écrit :
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 3:44 AM Nicolas Mailhot
> > wrote:
>
> >> POSIX is dead as a shell compatibility target. You want to replace
> >> bash
> >> with something faster, by all means
Once upon a time, Vít Ondruch said:
> Is there a way to do something similar to:
A case of:
pushd someplace
[do some things]
popd
can be replaced with:
cd someplace
[do some things]
cd -
If there's some more complicated stuff that has more directory changes
in between the
Dne 27. 03. 19 v 10:30 Dridi Boukelmoune napsal(a):
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:33 AM Nicolas Mailhot
> wrote:
>> Le 2019-03-27 03:46, Nico Kadel-Garcia a écrit :
>>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 3:44 AM Nicolas Mailhot
>>> wrote:
POSIX is dead as a shell compatibility target. You want to
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:33 AM Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
>
> Le 2019-03-27 03:46, Nico Kadel-Garcia a écrit :
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 3:44 AM Nicolas Mailhot
> > wrote:
>
> >> POSIX is dead as a shell compatibility target. You want to replace
> >> bash
> >> with something faster, by all means
Le 2019-03-26 16:51, Japheth Cleaver a écrit :
The tooling around the original ecosystem seemed to have no rhyme or
reason with it, JPackage efforts never *fully* went anywhere,
JPackage certainly went somewhere, and this somewhere is Fedora/Red Hat.
To recap, JPackage existed because the
Le 2019-03-27 03:46, Nico Kadel-Garcia a écrit :
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 3:44 AM Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
POSIX is dead as a shell compatibility target. You want to replace
bash
with something faster, by all means do it. With something that
includes
the GNU extensions like pushd/popd that
Dne 26. 03. 19 v 18:38 Tomasz Kłoczko napsal(a):
> If yes I can propose simpler solution like create .post_build_preserve.lst
> file in source build root and whatever will
> be added to that file should be archived in some
> --.tar.xz file to be accessible over koji
> web interface.
> If such
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 3:44 AM Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
>
> Le 2019-03-25 22:47, Japheth Cleaver a écrit :
> > If you can take a one-time hit to
> > remove bashisms and get a 25-40% improvement,
>
> CPU time is cheap, packager time is not. Exchanging CPU time for "you
> all should learn to write
On 3/26/2019 8:14 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 09:08 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:05 PM, Tomasz =?UTF-8?b?S8WCb2N6a28=?=
wrote:
[tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ rpm -E %_buildshell
/bin/sh
How can this discussion still be ongoing? Why not
On 3/26/2019 10:57 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
You want something faster than bash – write something faster than bash
with as expressive a syntax (and ideally the same syntax). Winning CPU
time by consuming packager time is not going to work.
This seems like it's begging the question. "The same
On 3/26/19 5:44 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
$ rpm --showrc | egrep -e "popd|pushd"
This scriptlet of yours isn't posix compliant, either.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
Feel free to "fix" all the spec and macro code you want. As it is now
and as it changes as people continuously rewrite and add to it.
You'll find little sympathy to adopt a spec syntax less featured and
convenient than the current one, in code that is largely not
performance-sensitive. So as the
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 16:44, Tomasz Kłoczko
wrote:
[..]
> If above is correct IMO collecting such files (it those files are really
> needed and used) should be done outside of the scope of regular "rpmbuild
> -ba".
> Collecting and preserving some build logs always should be part of the
>
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 15:42, Dridi Boukelmoune
wrote:
[..]
> > Japheth Cleaver explained why in response to me a couple of days ago:
> > apparently changing it would also change the shell used for some
> > scriptlets...
>
> He also posted this link:
>
On 3/26/2019 8:47 AM, Japheth Cleaver wrote:
On 3/26/2019 8:14 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 09:08 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:05 PM, Tomasz =?UTF-8?b?S8WCb2N6a28=?=
wrote:
[tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ rpm -E %_buildshell
/bin/sh
How can
On 3/26/2019 9:04 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le 2019-03-26 16:51, Japheth Cleaver a écrit :
As far as actually making changes in specs, let's try addressing that
separately and perhaps asynchronously. Most of the changes for things
likely to run in scriptlets are probably just straight
Le 2019-03-26 16:51, Japheth Cleaver a écrit :
As far as actually making changes in specs, let's try addressing that
separately and perhaps asynchronously. Most of the changes for things
likely to run in scriptlets are probably just straight mechanical
replacements. (We won't know until someone
On 3/26/2019 5:24 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le 2019-03-26 12:29, Dridi Boukelmoune a écrit :
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 8:43 AM Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
Le 2019-03-25 22:47, Japheth Cleaver a écrit :
> If you can take a one-time hit to
> remove bashisms and get a 25-40% improvement,
CPU time is
On 3/26/2019 8:14 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 09:08 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:05 PM, Tomasz =?UTF-8?b?S8WCb2N6a28=?=
wrote:
[tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ rpm -E %_buildshell
/bin/sh
How can this discussion still be ongoing? Why not
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 4:15 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 09:08 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:05 PM, Tomasz =?UTF-8?b?S8WCb2N6a28=?=
> > wrote:
> > > [tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ rpm -E %_buildshell
> > > /bin/sh
> >
> > How can this
On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 09:08 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:05 PM, Tomasz =?UTF-8?b?S8WCb2N6a28=?=
> wrote:
> > [tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ rpm -E %_buildshell
> > /bin/sh
>
> How can this discussion still be ongoing? Why not just change it to
> /bin/bash and
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:05 PM, Tomasz =?UTF-8?b?S8WCb2N6a28=?=
wrote:
[tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ rpm -E %_buildshell
/bin/sh
How can this discussion still be ongoing? Why not just change it to
/bin/bash and move on?
___
devel mailing list
Le 2019-03-26 14:16, Dridi Boukelmoune a écrit :
I was rather thinking about all the damage made on the java ecosystem
by the introduction of maven but fair enough.
maven, while not ideal, is just a reflection of the Java community
values SUN impulsed. I still remember when maven was
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 1:24 PM Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
>
> Le 2019-03-26 12:29, Dridi Boukelmoune a écrit :
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 8:43 AM Nicolas Mailhot
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Le 2019-03-25 22:47, Japheth Cleaver a écrit :
> >> > If you can take a one-time hit to
> >> > remove bashisms and
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 12:32, Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
[..]
> Packager time is not cheap, it's not inexhaustible, it runs out. Wasting
> it on bashisms is not smart.
>
I like that conclusion because it is way better than all what I wrote.
Thanks Nicolas for those two final sentences :)
kloczek
Le 2019-03-26 12:29, Dridi Boukelmoune a écrit :
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 8:43 AM Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
Le 2019-03-25 22:47, Japheth Cleaver a écrit :
> If you can take a one-time hit to
> remove bashisms and get a 25-40% improvement,
CPU time is cheap, packager time is not. Exchanging CPU
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 08:57, Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
[..]
> >What does this 42 means in this case? It means that during whole gcc build
> >are repeated 42 times some subset of *autoconf tests*. How it was possible
> >to loose that?!? 樂
> >gcc is quite monolithic and it should have only one
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 8:43 AM Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
>
> Le 2019-03-25 22:47, Japheth Cleaver a écrit :
> > If you can take a one-time hit to
> > remove bashisms and get a 25-40% improvement,
>
> CPU time is cheap, packager time is not. Exchanging CPU time for "you
> all should learn to write
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 07:52, Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
[..]
> CPU time is cheap, packager time is not. Exchanging CPU time for "you
> all should learn to write POSIX-only shell scripts" would be an awful
> deal.
I need more time. A year for the starter and I can pay good price ..
Where I can
On 25/03/19 22:40 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 21:17, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 08:18:34PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> Switching to other than bash sh interpreter allow reduce total gcc
package
> build time by ~5%.
OK. But that just
Le 2019-03-25 22:47, Japheth Cleaver a écrit :
If you can take a one-time hit to
remove bashisms and get a 25-40% improvement,
CPU time is cheap, packager time is not. Exchanging CPU time for "you
all should learn to write POSIX-only shell scripts" would be an awful
deal. The Java part of
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 21:57, Japheth Cleaver
wrote:
[..]
> It feels like there's been this vast movement to try to remove every last
> bit of shell from Fedora whenever possible, and I really don't understand
> the aversion.
>
In most of the cases it is nothing more than some form of NIH
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 21:17, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 08:18:34PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> > Switching to other than bash sh interpreter allow reduce total gcc
> package
> > build time by ~5%.
>
> OK. But that just shows that it is — possibly — worth to
On 3/25/2019 2:10 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 08:18:34PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
Switching to other than bash sh interpreter allow reduce total gcc package
build time by ~5%.
OK. But that just shows that it is — possibly — worth to switch the gcc build
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 08:18:34PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> Switching to other than bash sh interpreter allow reduce total gcc package
> build time by ~5%.
OK. But that just shows that it is — possibly — worth to switch the gcc build
to a different shell, by working with gcc upstream.
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 20:47, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
[..]
> [Also when giving one graph for one type of build, could you also give a
> similar graph showing how it looks with dash or ksh or whatever you used?]
>
Graph for the gcc will be exactly the same. Only overall time will be
shorter.
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 16:20, Tomasz Kłoczko
wrote:
> [.all the comments.]
>
> All replies are between "who cares?", "it is holy war/waste of time" to
> something like "be standards compliant is important" .. this thread is
> hilarious
> I'm observing all the comments under my post and (with
[.all the comments.]
All replies are between "who cares?", "it is holy war/waste of time" to
something like "be standards compliant is important" .. this thread is
hilarious
I'm observing all the comments under my post and (with full respect to all
of you guys) looks like all of you guys are
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 4:57 PM Japheth Cleaver wrote:
>
> On 3/25/2019 8:02 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 12:59 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
>
> And since RPM appears to be configurable for the
> default interpreter, have it use /usr/bin/bash by default.
>
> TBH, it
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 4:27 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 11:18, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > On 3/25/19 8:02 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 12:59 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> > >> And since RPM appears to be configurable for the
> > >>
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:27 AM
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:16:43 -0700 Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 3/25/19 8:02 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 12:59 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> >> And since RPM appears to be configurable for the
> >> default interpreter, have it
On 3/25/2019 8:02 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 12:59 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
And since RPM appears to be configurable for the
default interpreter, have it use /usr/bin/bash by default.
TBH, it seems to me reasonable that we just do this.
If our position is that we
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > explicit in this way instead of having the default be sh, but then tell
> > people sh must be bash?
>
> Doesn't bash behave slightly differently when invoked as 'sh' ?
bash behaviour has changed [1] over time --- /bin/sh is fixed
in behaviour
It is
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 11:18, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On 3/25/19 8:02 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 12:59 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> >> And since RPM appears to be configurable for the
> >> default interpreter, have it use /usr/bin/bash by default.
> >
> > TBH, it
On 3/25/19 8:02 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 12:59 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
>> And since RPM appears to be configurable for the
>> default interpreter, have it use /usr/bin/bash by default.
>
> TBH, it seems to me reasonable that we just do this.
>
> If our position
On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 12:59 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> And since RPM appears to be configurable for the
> default interpreter, have it use /usr/bin/bash by default.
TBH, it seems to me reasonable that we just do this.
If our position is that we actually expect Fedora package scriptlets to
* Stephen John Smoogen:
> My very hazy memory of UsrMove was that one of the arguments was that
> we were behind some other distros on this, and once again not "First".
Huh. That surprises me.
> I think the issue is that many of us look at the GNU/Linux ecosystem
> in different ways. There is
On 3/25/2019 5:12 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
Fedora is so different from other GNU/Linux systems these days, so I'm
not sure if *any* recommendation to encourage portability (at the cost
of convenience to Fedora developers or users) makes sense anymore.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 02:06:31PM +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 1:12 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > * Dridi Boukelmoune:
> >
> > > This is the kind of spec that leads to spoiled upstreams putting
> > > /bin/sh in shebangs and scratching their heads when they get bug
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 09:19, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Stephen John Smoogen:
>
> > On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 08:13, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>
> >> * Dridi Boukelmoune:
> >>
> >> > This is the kind of spec that leads to spoiled upstreams putting
> >> > /bin/sh in shebangs and scratching their
* Stephen John Smoogen:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 08:13, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> * Dridi Boukelmoune:
>>
>> > This is the kind of spec that leads to spoiled upstreams putting
>> > /bin/sh in shebangs and scratching their heads when they get bug
>> > reports for stricter systems...
>> >
>> >
> > > Fedora is based on GNU tools versus strict POSIX compliant ones. As
> > > such, packagers can expect that /bin/sh is /bin/bash, /bin/awk is
> > > /bin/gawk, /bin/cc is /bin/gcc ad naseum. This means that unless
> > > specified elsewhere that a 'bashism', 'gawkism', 'gcc-ism' is not to
> > >
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 1:12 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Dridi Boukelmoune:
>
> > This is the kind of spec that leads to spoiled upstreams putting
> > /bin/sh in shebangs and scratching their heads when they get bug
> > reports for stricter systems...
> >
> > I'd be happier if Fedora was not
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 08:13, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Dridi Boukelmoune:
>
> > This is the kind of spec that leads to spoiled upstreams putting
> > /bin/sh in shebangs and scratching their heads when they get bug
> > reports for stricter systems...
> >
> > I'd be happier if Fedora was not
* Dridi Boukelmoune:
> This is the kind of spec that leads to spoiled upstreams putting
> /bin/sh in shebangs and scratching their heads when they get bug
> reports for stricter systems...
>
> I'd be happier if Fedora was not part of the problem and maintainers
> were encouraged to figure out the
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 08:02, Dridi Boukelmoune
wrote:
>
> > Try 1 at specification:
> >
> > Fedora is based on GNU tools versus strict POSIX compliant ones. As
> > such, packagers can expect that /bin/sh is /bin/bash, /bin/awk is
> > /bin/gawk, /bin/cc is /bin/gcc ad naseum. This means that
> Try 1 at specification:
>
> Fedora is based on GNU tools versus strict POSIX compliant ones. As
> such, packagers can expect that /bin/sh is /bin/bash, /bin/awk is
> /bin/gawk, /bin/cc is /bin/gcc ad naseum. This means that unless
> specified elsewhere that a 'bashism', 'gawkism', 'gcc-ism' is
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 06:34, Japheth Cleaver wrote:
>
> On 3/25/2019 2:46 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le 2019-03-25 09:53, Jan Pokorný a écrit :
> >
> >> Good point, and that's something capable of making upstream
> >> maintenance cumbersome at times (sed is a common pet peeve),
> >> but
On 3/25/2019 2:46 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le 2019-03-25 09:53, Jan Pokorný a écrit :
Good point, and that's something capable of making upstream
maintenance cumbersome at times (sed is a common pet peeve),
but that's an order of magnitude more demanding level when it
comes to portability,
Le 2019-03-25 09:53, Jan Pokorný a écrit :
Good point, and that's something capable of making upstream
maintenance cumbersome at times (sed is a common pet peeve),
but that's an order of magnitude more demanding level when it
comes to portability, and with Fedora settled firmly just around
GNU
On 22/03/19 19:17 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 6:04 PM Japheth Cleaver
> wrote:
>> IMO the situation that we're in now ("Assume you're running in
>> bash, but called as -/bin/sh") is a worst-of-both-worlds middle
>> ground, somewhat akin to mandating webpages be
Dne 22. 03. 19 v 18:03 Japheth Cleaver napsal(a):
> RPM should IMHO indicate scriptlets are to be written in Bourne shell, give a
> 'SHOULD'-level recommendation for
> POSIX-correctness, and provide a mechanism for distros to override that
> default.
BTW any maintainer can easily indicate that
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 1:04 PM Japheth Cleaver wrote:
>
> On 3/21/2019 3:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> So what? On Fedora /bin/sh is bash, and bash is a fine shell.
>
> All this nonsense of using dash for /bin/sh on Debian is IMO a
> pointless bunch of make-work.
>
> Fedora has certainly
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 6:04 PM Japheth Cleaver wrote:
>
> On 3/21/2019 3:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
>
> So what? On Fedora /bin/sh is bash, and bash is a fine shell.
>
> All this nonsense of using dash for /bin/sh on Debian is IMO a
> pointless bunch of make-work.
>
> Fedora has
On 3/21/2019 3:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
So what? On Fedora /bin/sh is bash, and bash is a fine shell.
All this nonsense of using dash for /bin/sh on Debian is IMO a
pointless bunch of make-work.
Fedora has certainly made a lot of make-work projects over the last
decade, under
> This is fine, because /bin/sh is a symbolic link to /usr/bin/bash on Fedora.
>
> I always use pushd/popd in my packages.
It was also in the python packaging guidelines for py2+py3 builds.
Dridi
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hello, Tomasz Kłoczko.
Thu, 21 Mar 2019 22:05:55 + you wrote:
> Looks like many Fedora packagers forgot that ..
> /bin/sh
This is fine, because /bin/sh is a symbolic link to /usr/bin/bash on Fedora.
I always use pushd/popd in my packages.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev
> So what? On Fedora /bin/sh is bash, and bash is a fine shell.
I don't disagree.
> All this nonsense of using dash for /bin/sh on Debian is IMO a
> pointless bunch of make-work.
I may complain about Debian on every occasion but I think dash is a
much more sensible choice for /bin/sh, and that
On 3/22/19 12:23 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:05:55PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
Just FTR:
[tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ egrep -w "popd|pushd" * -l| wc -l
2843
Looks like many Fedora packagers forgot that ..
[tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ rpm -E %_buildshell
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:05:55PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> Just FTR:
>
> [tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ egrep -w "popd|pushd" * -l| wc -l
> 2843
>
> Looks like many Fedora packagers forgot that ..
>
> [tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ rpm -E %_buildshell
> /bin/sh
So what? On Fedora
Just FTR:
[tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ egrep -w "popd|pushd" * -l| wc -l
2843
Looks like many Fedora packagers forgot that ..
[tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ rpm -E %_buildshell
/bin/sh
I'm not sure is it would be good to post full list of all spec files here ..
kloczek
--
Tomasz Kłoczko |
76 matches
Mail list logo
