@nim-nim:
Your "nice properties" arguments are not persuasive.
Point by point:
1. Simple and easy to understand
For example, the common case of a single well formed compresset tarball with a
patch in a spec file is even simpler than your design:
%prep
%setup
%patch
2. It is simple and
Closed #548.
--
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/issues/548#event-1874148855___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Hand over to PR #558.
--
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/issues/548#issuecomment-425521671___
Rpm-maint mailing list
The numeric value `N` from `%setup -pN` will be passed to `tar`'s
`--strip-component=N` option,
which eliminates top `N` parts of paths in the tarball.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/558
-- Commit Summary --
I don't really have an opinion - either approach would work for us - I'm happy
to go with what seems safest if that's your preference.
[There's a certain nostalgia for seeing bygone paths like /usr/X11R6/man/ in
the source code ... do I smell the scent of floppies in the air?]
--
You are
Closed #549.
--
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/issues/549#event-1873855343___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Hand over to PR #557.
--
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/issues/549#issuecomment-425478667___
Rpm-maint mailing list
`%patch` is supplied with `%_default_patch_flags` from `macros.in`.
A similar macro `%_default_tar_flags` may be useful when `%__tar` is invoked by
`%setup` "behind the scenes". A possible setting in `macros.in` is
`--keep-old-files` (`-k`).
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request
FWIW, thread protection added to the string pool as of commit
7ffc4d17ffa8f87bd9107b5dc4d9e25daadd14ae so that part of these patches can be
dropped. Brief testing showed no problems with the rest applied, but I don't
have any real testcase for parallelism at hand.
--
You are receiving this
A rather annoying "feature" of the current lua integration is that the lua code
is evaluated before executing any rpm section
So if you provide a lua macro that does not blindly pass arguments somewhere
else, but does some test or processing on them
```specfile
%luamacro somevalue
```
will
> > No it won't, the variable is not really set before %build
>
> NOW we're getting somewhere. %setup parsing certainly defines it, and this
> happens before any shell script is executed, but I see it gets lost somewhere
> in the cracks of %prep parsing. I can take a look at it, all I remember
> Since you asked, here's a small proposal and a possible alternative.
>
> Proposal: In a macro definition, using an argument string of `-` (as in
> `%define macro(-)`) indicates
> that getopt processing should not be done at all, and all supplied arguments
> and options should be
> delivered
@nim-nim, @jasontibbitts okay I see now, thanks for the explanations.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Oh and BTW, if the reason for wanting to use %setup "at any cost" is that it
knows how to extract tar, zip, ruby gems and whatnot automatically, then *that*
might be another concrete something we could look into, ie add a simpler lower
level %extract or such helper macro/tool that can do what
> No it won't, the variable is not really set before %build
NOW we're getting somewhere. %setup parsing certainly defines it, and this
happens before any shell script is executed, but I see it gets lost somewhere
in the cracks of %prep parsing. I can take a look at it, all I remember
off-hand
15 matches
Mail list logo
