Hi Jeff,
I was taking a look at the "tar --to-command" option but unfortunately it
seems that even latest TAR versions do not support "cpio" archive type.
I think that hacking directly the rpmbuild utility would be indeed the most
elegant solution to the problem, but I'm not sure how
@n3npq : and all that has absolutely nothing to do with this perfectly legit
RFE, so why don't you just give it a rest, okay?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Passing `%{?__python}` was copied from Fedora. The script seems to expect it. I
can pass `""` here instead, as the invocation differs in Fedora anyway.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Passing %{?__python} at least deserves it's own separate patch. It also
deserves some argumentation why it does not change the behaviour (it probably
does) or why the change is acceptable/desirabled.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email
So I set `%_python_bytecompile_extra` to 1 as default. And the opt out is to
undefine it, opt in is to set it to 1.
Will do.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
The new "extra" naming is much better, thanks.
Now that I look closer though: the enable/disable "functions" are very unlike
anything else in rpm, and there's no obvious default when it's handled that
way. Just drop them and use define/undefine of %_python_bytecompile_extra
control it
Hi Jeff,
thanks for the useful pointers. I definitively think that my current Python
proof-of-concept can be improved, mostly in 2 areas:
1) the need of RPM unpacking, as you pointed out;
2) I found out it fails miserably to do its job when the RPM contains a
compiled ELF: the md5sum of the
