First of all, MaximumRPM was written in 1997, not 2000.
Second, the vast majority of packages have no need for a fancier %setup, nor
enhancements like %autosetup. Most software has been distributed on the
Internet as a tarball that can be downloaded, and most packages do not need
anything more
Panu, one huge reason `%setup` is still a mess after all this time it that it
is linked to the `SourceX` black magic. And yes rpmbuild will complain loudly
if you deviate from the way it thinks things should be done. And yes it will
refuse to process the resulting spec. And the documentation is
The values may be the same but the usage cases are not.
The single underscore was intended as the shell for the %build section, while
the double underscore was intended to set defaults for the different build
section sections.
You of course are permitted to do whatever you wish with whatever
As it stands, `%___build_shell` might as well be renamed to/replaced with
`%_buildshell`.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
I bet it's non-standard due to _--apparent-size_ option which _-b_ enables.
That said, what about using _-B1_ (a.k.a. _--block-size=1_)?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
This is true (I've written tools that work this way), but I'm not sure
setuptools provides us the ability to introspect that...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Quoting http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/du.html:
> By default, file sizes shall be written in 512-byte units, rounded up to the
> next 512-byte unit.
The same document kinda points out that -b is a non-standard extension. Whether
it actually matters here ... I dunno if
There are any number of places where rpm will do the right thing with a
hardcoded default even without some macro set, but the defaults are normally
explicitly set in macros. I fail to see how defaults buried in code over those
clearly set in macros would be better for anybody.
If there's some
Part of the problem is the lengths people go to in order to use %setup for
unpacking sources even when it ends up being counter-beneficial. Just call it
once to setup the main directory and do the rest with tar/unzip/whatever. It's
not like the magic %setup incantation required to unpack dozen
If I understand correctly, when installing anything with setuptools which has
entrypoints, it will use `pkg_resources` to lokate library. And since python
doesn't depend on setuptools, this breaks.
This has been reported somewhere over IRC to me.
--
You are receiving this because you are
10 matches
Mail list logo
