>>>> "PM" == Panu Matilainen
PM> macroized into something like %cmake_setup, %cmake_build and
PM> %cmake_install? Okay, it requires somebody to actually do it and
PM> sanction but...
Well, I try but to be honest I thought cmake was fairly cleaned up. And
yes, I agree that to as much of a degree as possible, the macros for
various buildsystems should follow a basic
PM> Taking the idea a bit further, if everything were to follow such
PM> %foo_setup, %foo_build, %foo_install then at least in simple and/or
PM> well-behaved cases you could do the whole setup-build-install thing
PM> with one spec line wher just the type varies:
PM> %autobuild foo
Now look here. Usually I'm the one who proposes things like this, and
usually everyone tells me I'm insane and that the RPM people would never
go for it. And sometimes I do actually try implementing those things,
where I generally run into some minor thing that RPM proper would need
to add, but indeed the RPM folks aren't interested. Probably because
I'm not providing the needed patch to RPM, whose code simply hurts my
But if Panu's going to propose crazy things, too, then I'm going to
consider that ample justification and drag out some of those old ideas I
have stashed away.
But back to reality, I wish there were enough packages which actually
worked without needing to tweak something or pass extra flags or change
some permissions at the end of install or whatever to make this actually
something which would be generally useful. Because even if the super
simple thing works at some point in time, upstream is eventually going to
put out an update that requires you to tweak something, and then you'd
have to delete your pretty autobuild call and do back to the old school
way of doing things.
Now if RPM let you have multiple %build or %install sections and just
concatenated them, then you could have %autobuild and then later an
%install section that removes that stuff you didn't want installed or
does that recursive permission change..... But it doesn't.