On 08/11/2016 07:37 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>> "TO" == Tomas Orsava
TO> That looks incredible! Why didn't it see the light of day? Time
TO> constraints or some technical issues?
Well, it sort of fell by the wayside as I got involved with other
things. I've learned a lot about RPM internals since then and I know I
really should get back to it. So many things higher up in the
(incredibly huge) queue.
TO> Maybe it could be revived?
Technically it isn't dead; I just haven't worked on it in a (long)
Basically I tried to come up with the ideal spec file and worked
backwards from that. It's still not going to work for every package,
and it still isn't remotely as nice as simply not using an RPM spec at
all (and just generating one from metadata) but I think it's at least
Also, it does horrible, horrible things behind the scenes because RPM
just doesn't give us a couple of needed bits. I filed a ticket with RPM
upstream to try and have it do that but no luck. But the actual macros
behind the scenes are very well commented so at least things should be
The magic worries me. It seems like if these macros were finished, you'd
be about the only person capable of maintaining them. And if something
goes wrong (magic tends to imply fragility), I'm not looking forward to
the debugging sessions. So, while I am blown away by this project, I'm
inclined to place my bets on pyp2rpm instead.
I don't think the end goals – not having to write a spec at all, or
write an ideal spec – are as important as the debugging experience.
But, that's all just my view; I have no intentions of hindering the
project, and I encourage anyone involved with RPM macros to study it and
see what's possible.