While I do have some sympathy for this feature request its benefits do just not
outweigh the disadvantage of adding another keywords packager should be aware
of. Discussion on the mailing list has IMHO failed to yield compelling use
cases but has seen quite a bit of negative reactions.
So
Closed #417.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/417#event-1563315728___
Rpm-maint mailing list
%optional essentially means "please include this file into the package, but I'm
explicitly OK if it disappears from the package at any time for whatever reason
because I don't care".
Specfile syntax in its current form is already used for careless packaging,
there is hardly any need to
I asked for feed back about this PR on the rpm-ecosystem mailing list.
http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-ecosystem/2018-March/000569.html
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@Conan-Kudo: %missingok applies to installs, %optional to build package
manifests, very different (and both are arguably not needed or very useful when
proof-of-reproducible IDENTITY checks are being attempted).
(aside)
Would you like to wager whether %ghost files are handled in Alt IDENTITY
xmminintrin.h packaging in a gcc (and arch) specific sub directory is hardly a
compelling usage case for addition of %optional to rpm: gcc is hard packaging
no matter what, and adding a generally available %optional everywhere in rpm is
an invitation for abuse, if the only justification is a
@n3npq There are arch specific includes in the toolchains themselves (not
necessarily located in /usr/include). I'm talking about the likes of
xmmintrin.h (which is x86 specific intrinsics for x86 SIMD in gcc) and other
bits in /usr/lib64/gcc/*/*/include.
Especially when building compilers and
FWIW, the %optional patch is from ArkLinux, not OpenMandriva, and from you, not
Per Øyvind
http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-devel/1492.html
In 2007, I took pity on a hacker single handedly trying to maintain an entire
linux distribution.
Meanwhile, %optional is useless fluff, and there are most
Counter contrarian examples of the uselessness of %optional:
0) There are _NO_ arch specific include files in Fedora/Centos after a fair
amount of effort to patch all include files to be arch-independent way back
when (like RHEL5 time frame). Being able to copy trees from /usr/include
without
@n3npq %optional is in rpm5 tarballs -- it originates from "wild hacking in
OpenMandriva", but was upstreamed earlier.
Please see the first message on this thread for 2 cases where we make use of
it. Nothing that can't be done without it, but with it, the spec files can be
significantly shorter
FWIW: %optional is directly at odds with "reproducible" builds and does little
more than skip a hard error failure for no stated usage case.
Attributing this to rpm5.org is rather bogus: the %optional implementation is
nothing I remember seeing, and smells of Per Oyvind's wild hacking in
Added tests for everything I could think of -- but couldn't run the tests
(local problems related to rpm5->rpm4 switch leaving a couple of things
broken), so please double-check I didn't mess them up.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email
@berolinux pushed 1 commit.
a6f4df2 Add tests for %optional
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/417/files/01ea7a2d4f2c88ea4c3ffe172e772c309ea64dd5..a6f4df21206bc0880ffc272d29b74608c05936a2
Generally, this looks pretty good. From my understanding of this, this is a
build-time variant of the `%missingok` attribute used for marking files as
installed, but okay to be missing on uninstall? That is, it's okay if the file
is missing during package build.
It'd be great if you could add
semaphore failure seems unrelated to the patch
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/417#issuecomment-373183760___
Cc @Conan-Kudo
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/417#issuecomment-373178479___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Add the %optional tag from rpm5 -- it allows to mark a file in the file
list as optional, meaning if it's there, it's packaged, but if it isn't
there, it will be ignored.
A typical use case is
%optional %{_includedir}/arch-specific-file.h
(easier and shorter than using %ifarch and having to list
17 matches
Mail list logo
