Would it be appropriate to document the various build flags we use (mostly via redhat-rpm-config) in this page?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B
This would be the natural place to include this information, but the process for updating this page seems to be a bit complicated. Can you suggest any alternatives?
Thanks, Florian
"FW" == Florian Weimer fweimer@redhat.com writes:
FW> Would it be appropriate to document the various build flags we use FW> (mostly via redhat-rpm-config) in this page?
FW> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B
It's certainly a good idea to document those flags, but the packaging guidelines aren't always the best place to document things, and not just because there is bureaucracy involved in getting them changed. In the future those might not even be on the wiki.
However, it occurs to me that we do already require specific compilation flags to be used, by way of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags But all we really do is say that you have to respect %optflags and then link out to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros#Build_flags_macros_and_va... (which is probably outdated now). There's also information about %_hardened_build which I'm not sure is accurate right now.
FW> This would be the natural place to include this information, but the FW> process for updating this page seems to be a bit complicated.
It's not that bad. File a ticket at https://pagure.io/packaging-committee and tell us what you think should be in the guidelines. If something in the current guidelines is factually inaccurate, we will get it changed.
FW> Can you suggest any alternatives?
Well, if you want something that's not part of the packaging guidelines, anyone can make a wiki page (outside of Packaging: and Legal:, of course).
- J<
On 01/17/2018 09:01 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Well, if you want something that's not part of the packaging guidelines, anyone can make a wiki page (outside of Packaging: and Legal:, of course).
Maybe we can put the actual documentation in the redhat-rpm-config package and link to it in the guidelines?
Something like this:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/fweimer/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/blob/master/f/buildflags.md
The final document would reside in the official redhat-rpm-config sources and would also be installed by the package.
This way, we can update the documentation when we make changes to the build flags.
Thanks, Florian
On Thursday, 18 January 2018 at 13:19, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 01/17/2018 09:01 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Well, if you want something that's not part of the packaging guidelines, anyone can make a wiki page (outside of Packaging: and Legal:, of course).
Maybe we can put the actual documentation in the redhat-rpm-config package and link to it in the guidelines?
Something like this:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/fweimer/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/blob/master/f/buildflags.md
The final document would reside in the official redhat-rpm-config sources and would also be installed by the package.
This way, we can update the documentation when we make changes to the build flags.
That seems like a good idea. I'm +1 to that.
Regards, Dominik
Is it possible to specify the C++ standard, instead of a specific compiler, in the BuildRequires. I am not sure how this would work ?
On 01/17/2018 05:16 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
Would it be appropriate to document the various build flags we use (mostly via redhat-rpm-config) in this page?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B
This would be the natural place to include this information, but the process for updating this page seems to be a bit complicated. Can you suggest any alternatives?
Thanks, Florian
On 01/19/2018 02:29 AM, Brad Bell wrote:
Is it possible to specify the C++ standard, instead of a specific compiler, in the BuildRequires. I am not sure how this would work ?
The Fedora C++ compiler is GCC.
For library interoperability reasons, everything has to be built with the default C++ standards version in GCC. Selecting a different default on a per-package basis would be unwise.
Thanks, Florian
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org