Closed #3096 as completed via 882c75b5a8cef5e1dc7ec6a81abca7ef7e0b93bb.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3096#event-13130779073
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Summary is a mandatory field on rpm packages, we cannot very well write illegal
packages.
If we don't have a meaningful value we need to stick *something* in it.
That said, this is probably a bridge too far and seems easily avoided by
requiring the mandatory base tags to be supplied by the
I have used "valid" in a sense that I would not be allowed to create SRPM
without e.g. summary. So apparently, this does not use the same code paths
which is concerning.
Also, when I saw the test case in
One way to make the SRPM "valid" is ofc just adding a dummy description (and
summary, ...). This won't make the difference between the `rpmbuild -bs` and
`rpmbuild -ba` SRPMs go away. Looks like all this dynamic stuff is not very
kind to the SRPMs - the dynamic BuildRequires are similar in
Good to see someone is actually testing these kind of things!
This is kind of intentional. I guess I need to meditate a bit on how
intentional. The Summary being dynamic (aka determined during build) ofc means
it is not available during `rpmbuild -bs`. May be this is just the price to pay
-
~~~
$ curl -OL
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/raw/master/tests/data/SPECS/dynamic.spec
% Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current
Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed
0 00 00 0
