On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 12:24:08AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Paul Howarth wrote:
Wouldn't this problem be avoided if the SRPM was built in a buildroot containing all of the buildreqs (like the binary RPMs are)?
It would be an extra step in the build process, but not a big extra step.
- Build SRPM in minimal buildroot to determine buildreqs (as currently)
- Populate buildroot with buildreqs (as currently)
- Rebuild SRPM in this buildroot (this is the extra step)
- Build binary RPMs in this buildroot (as currently)
This was discussed in the 2010-01-08 FESCo meeting (with people from rel-eng also present). It was decided that this was not worth the effort and that using macros in SRPMs in this way is not something we want to support.
Normally automation and lack of duplication is regarded as a good thing.
Package X and mingw32-X are related. The description of mingw32-X could be something like:
"This package is the library X, cross-compiled for 32 bit Windows.
Do NOT install this package if you want the native library X (install package 'X' instead).
Install this package only if you want to cross-compile a program which uses library X."
In almost any other area of computer science one would use a macro for this. RPM doesn't always expand macros in the %description section. That's a bug in RPM and/or the build system.
Rich.