David Walluck wrote:
Thomas Fitzsimmons wrote:
> A comment in aot-compile-rpm raises the possibility of including
> this script in RPM itself. Gary, do you think this is feasible in
> the FC5 time frame?
Gary has already gotten a portion of this process into rpm, only
it's not being used by default. If we're going to put it in, we also
need the logic to (easily) enable it in the macros file for a
particular distribution, or better, from a particular .spec.
I am disappointed that no one was interested in a discussion of
moving the natifying outside of the specific rpm, but I have just
given up on this idea. I certainly don't have the time or desire to
implement it myself.
Having natifying outside of specific rpms was my original intention:
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/rpm-devel/2005-July/000507.html
Indeed, aot-compile-rpm was specifically designed to be used in the
same way as brp-python-bytecompile, though the --exclude option that
everyone loves except me has broken this somewhat.
The problem with this is as I outlined in the above email, in that
there are five things that need to happen for transparent native
compilation, of which aot-compile-rpm is just one step (and the
simplest at that). The two most tricky steps (adding %post/%postun
scripts, and adding dependencies for same) were the ones I really
wanted to automate, but Jeff Johnson's solutions were basically "do
it manually".
Cheers,
Gary