Re: can support for "rpm"-based package building just be dropped?

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

>
> On Nov 26 2007 06:58, Ray Lee wrote:
> >On Nov 26, 2007 12:54 AM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> >>   on current systems, "rpm" no longer has build capability and will
> >> fail thusly:
> >>
> >> rpm --target i386 -ta ../kernel-2.6.24rc3g2ffbb837dirty.tar.gz
> >> --target: unknown option
> >>
> >>   so it would make more sense to just require "rpmbuild" on the
> >> machine, would it not?
> >
> >Only on current machines. You'd break building kernel RPMs on older
> >systems that don't have rpmbuild installed.
>
> Those old machines probably do not even run a distro-fabricated gcc that
> would compile a git head kernel.

well, in a nutshell, the problem scenario is that it's entirely
possible to have a modern distro (say, fedora 8, like i'm using) on
which you have the latest "rpm" package installed, but not "rpmbuild".
at which point scripts/package/Makefile, based on this:

RPM := $(shell if [ -x "/usr/bin/rpmbuild" ]; then echo rpmbuild; \
                   else echo rpm; fi)

will select "rpm" as the value of the variable RPM, at which point
things go south in a hurry as soon as you try to build an rpm package
using $(RPM) aka "rpm".

perhaps a solution would be to have two variables -- RPM and RPMBUILD
-- and set them appropriately based on what the Makefile finds.  and,
of course, whine incessantly if you have an unworkable setup.

anyway, have at it.

rday

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://crashcourse.ca
========================================================================