Dne 2.1.2015 v 16:59 Jan Zeleny napsal(a):
Dne Út 23. prosince 2014 09:57:31, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 22.12.2014 v 19:18 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a):
>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de writes:
RC> If we'd want to change something about this, rpm would likely have RC> to modified - I don't think this would be advisable.
I was kind of hoping Panu or some other RPM dev would notice the thread and give a hint as to how painful it might be. I'm not entirely sure how to get their attention otherwise.
I'm adding jzeleny into CC. Hopefully he will delegate this question to someone from RPM team, who could elaborate.
Could you first be a bit more specific as to what exactly would you like rpm to do? I haven't seen any specific proposals in this thread. in the thread. As for minimizing the BRs, I believe the Base WG is the one you should talk to, as they have already done some work in that area.
Thanks Jan
Unfortunately the most important idea was stripped from the previous discussion and it was:
"It actually is the norm to have additional build-time-deps just to run testsuites (aka. %check).".
So what I would like to see (and Ralf probably meant) is something like "BuildRequires(check): foo" (there were times when RPM allowed this syntax, although probably just by mistake). Or probably "CheckRequires: foo" might be even better. In this case, if you run something like "rpmbuild --disable-check -ba ....", it would skip the %check section and hence you would not need the check requires.
The %check could be even automatically disabled during the bootstrap phase.
Vít
On 01/05/2015 05:03 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 2.1.2015 v 16:59 Jan Zeleny napsal(a):
Dne Út 23. prosince 2014 09:57:31, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 22.12.2014 v 19:18 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a):
>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de writes:
RC> If we'd want to change something about this, rpm would likely have RC> to modified - I don't think this would be advisable.
I was kind of hoping Panu or some other RPM dev would notice the thread and give a hint as to how painful it might be. I'm not entirely sure how to get their attention otherwise.
I'm adding jzeleny into CC. Hopefully he will delegate this question to someone from RPM team, who could elaborate.
Could you first be a bit more specific as to what exactly would you like rpm to do? I haven't seen any specific proposals in this thread. in the thread. As for minimizing the BRs, I believe the Base WG is the one you should talk to, as they have already done some work in that area.
Thanks Jan
Unfortunately the most important idea was stripped from the previous discussion and it was:
"It actually is the norm to have additional build-time-deps just to run testsuites (aka. %check).".
So what I would like to see (and Ralf probably meant) is something like "BuildRequires(check): foo" (there were times when RPM allowed this syntax, although probably just by mistake). Or probably "CheckRequires: foo" might be even better. In this case, if you run something like "rpmbuild --disable-check -ba ....", it would skip the %check section and hence you would not need the check requires.
The %check could be even automatically disabled during the bootstrap phase.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134397
- Panu -
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Panu Matilainen -
Vít Ondruch